Nintendo Dismisses Online For GC Successor 155
Thanks to an anonymous reader for pointing to a GamePro article discussing Nintendo's public attitude to online gaming, even as it extends to the GameCube successor. According to Nintendo's senior VP George Harrison, "[Online gaming] is a consideration. We're looking into it for the next iteration of the GameCube. We just don't believe consumers are ready for it. Right now, no one's paying for subscriptions. The real test comes when you have to start coughing up $15 per month." However, analyst Michael Goodman doesn't concur: "The game console isn't just a game console anymore. It's evolving into a home entertainment system. Nintendo has refused to acknowledge that and it's hurt them."
Oh Nintendo... (Score:4, Funny)
Boy did that work out well. Didn't they learn anything?
Re:Oh Nintendo... (Score:4, Insightful)
Don't forget that at the time many CD-based games were just "interactive" postage-stamp movies. I think the craze that nintendo was avoiding was the "multimedia" craze, not so much the "mass data storage on CD" craze.
Personally, most of my favorite games are cartridge based, mainly because the constraints force the developers to concentrate on gameplay, rather than just throwing a lot of graphics and sound at it. Unfortunately most of the games for the N64 still sucked.
Re:Oh Nintendo... (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Oh Nintendo... (Score:2)
The NintendoStation would have been a SegaCD sized flop. Add-on perpherials tend to not do good. With all three companies killing themselves off, console gaming would have died a quick, ugly death.
Nintendo did the right thing, It hink
Re:Oh Nintendo... (Score:2)
Unless you do something worthwhile. Like the GameBoy Player for the GameCube. I can say, without a doubt; Best. Add-on. Ever.
Re:Oh Nintendo... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Oh Nintendo... (Score:2)
I don't care what Nintendo's beef with CDs was, looking at the sales numbers of SNES vs Genesis and N64 vs PSX, my conclusion is that they were just plain wrong from the perspective that matters most, sales and popularity.
Re:Oh Nintendo... (Score:2, Interesting)
Regardless of sales and popularity, the n64 did make a big profit for Nintendo. Th
Re:Oh Nintendo... (Score:2, Interesting)
Why yes, i did realize that, in fact, "dear god man open your eyes," that was the _point_. The SNES did great, and Nintendo was all set to dominate the next generation, but when you compare how well the SNES did vs. the Genesis with how well the N64 did vs.s the PSX (one can debate whether it did "badly" or not, but it certainly didn't do great) that's not what happened at all.
Why? Well, the decision to stick with cartridges com
Re:Oh Nintendo... (Score:1)
You obviously couldn't host a huge amount of players, but hosting 4-8 people is doable and enough for most games.
The only reason why more companies don't do this is:
1. The particular game is massively multiplayer
2. They want more money in subscription fees
3. They want total control over how the users play
Otherwise,
Re:Oh Nintendo... (Score:2)
Maybe nintendo's plan is... (Score:3, Interesting)
Gaming companies are going to create games for the systems with the higest sales numbers; it's the best way to make sure that if you make a good game, it'll sell well.
Nintendo is right (Score:2, Insightful)
The analyst is wrong. Game consoles are NOT home entertainment devices, they are game consoles. Everyone who has tried to make them more than that have failed in the extras. PS2 dvd player isn't very good. XBox DVD player you
Nintendo is wrong (Score:3, Interesting)
While that may be true in some circles, I can tell you that I, and friends of mine, have wanted Nintendo to start making online versions of their games for a very long time. Imagine a game as chaotic and infinitely fun as Super Smash Brothers or Goldeneye 007 in a MMO scene and tell me that wouldn't be badass.
Re:Nintendo is wrong (Score:3, Insightful)
yeah, but anyone who felt so inclined could run a quake3 server, which probably isn't going to be the case with console online games. Serving all has to be done by the publisher or whoever, and they aren't going to incur that cost for free.
Re:Nintendo is wrong (Score:2)
xbox live lets you run your own game server. atleast on some games.
Re:Nintendo is wrong (Score:2)
You're probably right, but that's not how it should be. Online games should always remain decentralized in order to thrive. Nintendo makes online game, Nintendo sells online game client, Nintendo distributes free server
Re:Nintendo is wrong (Score:2)
Obviosuly it would require some extra coding by the developers, but there's no need to have a dedicated PC server that i can see.
Re:Nintendo is wrong (Score:1, Flamebait)
Re:Nintendo is wrong (Score:3, Interesting)
Well your opinion doesn't really matter to Nintedo then, does it? If you're not buying their console or the games they make they won't see any point in trying to make the game you're not going t
Re:Nintendo is wrong (Score:2)
Re:Nintendo is wrong (Score:2, Interesting)
A console game is great for consoles but falls flat on the PC. The same thing going the other way. They are 2 totally different environments with different crowds. Its always been that way and I don't see that changing.
"Imagine a game as chaotic and infinitely fun as Super Smash Brothers or Goldeneye 007 in a MMO scene and tell me that wouldn't be badass."
Thos
Re:Nintendo is wrong (Score:2)
Who's gonna host the servers? That's what I thought.
Re:Nintendo is wrong (Score:2)
OK. It wouldn't be badass. It would be a failure of staggering proportions, and Nintendo knows this. Microsoft has the money to put a rocket on the "online console" brick and make it fly. Nintendo does not, they know this, and they're not stupid enough to try.
Last I checked, Quake3 didn't have a monthly fee.
You can't run a Quake 3 server onyour console, you have
Re:Nintendo is right (Score:3, Informative)
I think causality is in question. PS2 has a DVD player, and it also sold well. Therefore, the PS2 sold well because of the DVD player.
Actually there is some truth to that. The launch titles on the Ps2 sucked, but in Japan the units were gobbled up because in Japan, DVD players were spendy items and the PS2 was competitive.
However, system sales does not a successful system make. Nintendo may not be in as
Re:Nintendo is right (Score:1)
I know that in my case, the fact that the PS2 could play DVD's is why I could get one as early as I did. It definitely increased the WAF. (wife acceptance factor)
She even sat in line with me at midnight on launch day so we could get one. She doesn't even really like playing games much
Re:Nintendo is right (Score:2, Insightful)
Well now lots of people have their PS2s with the DVD player. Not only that but an actual DVD player costs a lot less than it did when PS2 launched. So unless the PS3 a great machine with super games why get it. If the PS3 launches with games like the PS2 did Nintendo's gonna bury them. One thing Nintendo does good is make a good gaming console. They don't try to add a whole bu
Re:Nintendo is right (Score:1)
PSO (Score:5, Interesting)
Why different for consoles? (Score:1)
Now, if Nintendo
Re:Why different for consoles? (Score:2, Funny)
--Jeremy
Re:Why different for consoles? (Score:1)
History Repeats (Score:5, Interesting)
The Super Nintendo was a good product. The GBA was seriously flawed, as evidenced by the success of the GBA-SP, which is also a good product. (BTW, missing headphone port seriously overrated; I got the adapter and still almost never use it when traveling, which given the ease of folding the SP up and slapping it in my pocket is quite frequently. But this could too easily turn into an SP-love-fest...) The N64 was also seriously flawed because Nintendo missed the optical disk trend, and was seriously hobbled by using cartridges as a result.
The Gamecube is, as far as I know, a good product (don't own one, but haven't heard systematic complaints about it), so maybe they're due for a Major Boat Missing again. Will they be able to survive?
Granted, this isn't quite as bad as the N64 going with carts, despite the fact it had been obvious for multiple years that they could not hold enough data, especially for 3D, where a single good texture would be the size of a 1980 megahit videogame. Online gaming in the console arena is too new to be called a run-away success. On the other hand, the trend in the PC world is crystal clear; while not everything has to be playable online, anything that can be, should be, and it will contribute to its success in ways that a non-online experience couldn't have. (Would Diablo have been as much of a success without online support?) If nothing else, online play relieves the game house of the still-nearly-impossible task of writing an AI!
I'd feel pretty safe in predicting that if they don't include online capabilities in the base-unit, or as a really cheaply-priced upgrade, that it will be seen as a mistake on par with sticking a 3D system like the N64 with just cartridges for data storage. People like playing with people and that is not going to change.
In fact, phrase it that way and one almost wonders at the hubris of thinking you can discard the single best AI intelligence there is on your console and still compete against the console systems who will tap that AI to the fullest!
Re:History Repeats (Score:2)
Not to take away from your post but the N64 - financially, was a sucuess. Nintendo made a lot of money on the N64 - they diden't sell it at a loss for long, and most N64 owners bought a lot of first-party Nintenso titles.
The GameCube is looking to follow the N64 - smallar following than Sony, but very profitable.
Re:History Repeats (Score:2)
Nintendo has really fantastic first party games. And really, that and the game boy are about the only things keeping them afloat.
I've been predicting for years that Nintendo would and should go the way of Sega (offering their excellent titles on all platforms), but they insist on making mistakes and squandering market share.
Re:History Repeats (Score:2)
Umm, I'd just like to point out
The way you make that statement, it seems to imply that they should need something more to stay competitive. What else, exactly, do you want from them? Should they also have a slew of crappy games to ro
Re:History Repeats (Score:2)
Notice even you say "their
Re:History Repeats (Score:2)
If Nintendo went after the mainstream, its games would be just like those of Sony and Microsoft, and the consumer would have even less diversity. And people would be crying about how Nintendo don't make those great games anymore, instead of insisting tha
Status Quo (Score:2)
The problem with the N64 is that while it was profitable, many owners were unsatisfied with the lack of games. Sure, certain niches were popular (Party Games and Wrestling Games come to mind), but the 'casual gamer' doesn't stick with niches. They want to play the big, glitzy games, and publishers want the big, glitzy games to sell a lot to make up for the extra expenses (see: Enter the Matrix).
Re:History Repeats (Score:3, Informative)
I think you mean that it made a profit, which may be true. But I'm looking at the larger levels: Marketshare, developer mindshare, user mindshare, even cool game mindshare. Sure, some amazing stuff was put out on the system but it was despite of the limitations of the console, not because of the power of the console. Compared to what could, and even perhaps should have been, the N64 bombed.
Part of this is handwaving, because I can't
Re:History Repeats (Score:4, Insightful)
Don't be so hard on Nintendo (Score:2)
Cable modem cost as well... (Score:1)
Michael Goodman is clueless. (Score:2)
How well have the other two really done? (Score:3, Insightful)
I myself couldn't care less about online gaming, and I think Nintendo is right at this point. For many people it's to much bother, all to get your ass handed to you by somebody who lives to play xyz Online.
And offtopic but I think it'd be awesome if Rockstar used the PS2 network to stream new radio station content in GTA5(or whatever it'll be called). Radio stations were the best feature of that game, and that would be a nifty use of the PS2's online capability.
Re:How well have the other two really done? (Score:2)
Re:How well have the other two really done? (Score:2)
And if I recall correctly the Live kit was $50ish, and that got you on for 12 months. I assme the cost there will rise eventually, it'll be interesting to see if they can maintain their subscriber base in the fact of a monthly fee. $50 a year has to be a loss leader, that network didn't come cheap.
Re:How well have the other two really done? (Score:2)
The price will still be $50/year.
Re:How well have the other two really done? (Score:2)
Re:How well have the other two really done? (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:How well have the other two really done? (Score:2)
Re:How well have the other two really done? (Score:2)
Better Article (Score:4, Informative)
"Microsoft and Sony have now rolled out online services in all three major global territories for their consoles, but the numbers of subscribers remain relatively low - with estimates for the combined numbers of console online gamers ranging from one to two million players, only a tiny fraction of the 60-million odd installed base of the two consoles." (emphasis mine)
Yes, Sony and (especially) Microsoft may be establishing themselves as an 'online' brand. But they are not getting a very big finnancial benefit out of it, and will it be a big boost in the long run? If brand was all that mattered, shouldn't Atari be ruling the market right now?
That's why I don't have a GC (Score:2)
Re:That's why I don't have a GC (Score:1)
Nintendo has and always will be about their kickass first party games. Single player games. The ones I play all the time. There are a whole lot more people who play these types, than ones who play explictly multiplayer games.
I love my gamecube because the single player games for it are some of the best I have ever played. And this is why I purchased it.
Re:That's why I don't have a GC (Score:1)
Re:That's why I don't have a GC (Score:2)
You're describing the reason why I barely ever play my Xbox: Most "worthwile" games are all about voice-enabled multiplayer, which I simply don't enjoy at all.
Different kinds of gamers, different consoles I guess.
Re:That's why I don't have a GC (Score:2)
Nintendo: online console pioneers? (Score:2)
Re:Nintendo: online console pioneers? (Score:2)
Atari 2600 Gameline [atarihq.com]
Re:Nintendo: online console pioneers? (Score:1)
Re:Nintendo: online console pioneers? (Score:1)
Sega also had the 'Sega Gaming' channel which was like a PPV cable channel that was offered by Time Warner around the climax of the Genesis. I believe it let you download games to play and they had a cable box that you could plug controllers into. Not positive.
I was too busy setting up atd
Re:Nintendo: online console pioneers? (Score:2)
Re:Nintendo: online console pioneers? (Score:2)
Thats not to say that Nintendo is any foreigner to networking-- they've offered networking options throughout the years. The SNES had a Bandai Satellite, which was sort of like the Sega Channel, only for SNES and broadcast over the satellite. With the release of the 64DD also came RandNET,
Parents will not pay two or three times (Score:2, Interesting)
Plus is just dosent make any cents for publisher to set up a high overhead, high maintance product li
Re:Parents will not pay two or three times (Score:2)
Re:Parents will not pay two or three times (Score:1)
Would you want to spend 25% of your gaming budget for online play? I wouldn't. Not until all of my friends have the same console and broadband at least.
Re:Parents will not pay two or three times (Score:2)
50 on top of broadband ISP costs (no modem allowed) and the time/knowledge to set up a home LAN. With the computer in the office and the console in the living room(A typical setup), many houses would need some rewiring or a not-so-small initial investment in WiFi equipment. When you already have a home LAN with computers everywhere, it's all really easy. For Joe Sixpack it might not be that easy.
Just this w/o paying per game. the Basic Live service, with games that don't need much infrastructure server-si
Probably not a bad assessment. (Score:3, Insightful)
It seems that on-line games are still in their infancy and are probably fueled most by PC gamers who already incurred the cost of the computer and ISP service. To PC gamers the game fees are really only an incremental cost that is more easily tolerated.
For consoles to really catch on on-line, the prices really need to get driven down, because the main reason for sucessful consoles is large numbers of people too cheap to buy a $2500 gaming PC. For example, consider an average family who recently justified the cost of a cell phone and cable TV in the past several years now confronted with whether to shell out more money per month on on-line games. It took over a decade for cell phones to be in everyone's pocket and often displacing land-line service (rich and poor, it seems); perhaps it will be similar for on-line games.
Re:Probably not a bad assessment. (Score:2)
Re:Probably not a bad assessment. (Score:2)
Buying the game and putting it in the console is pretty much what I meant by "set up". It seems many (most?) on-line games require purchasing something up-front before the recurring fees begin.
Monthly money for ISP service? How is that specific for online gaming? Since you're posting this on Slashdot, I assume you have some way of getting on the Internet as well.
The bread-n-butter of the avera
On-line console gaming still lacks a "killer app" (Score:1)
Re:On-line console gaming still lacks a "killer ap (Score:1)
On another note, they do have Resident Evil 1 and 0. 1 is a total remake. New graphics, new rooms etc etc etc and 0 is a whole new game. RE isnt my type of game, but maybe for you its a killer app.
Rent them, then decide, but for the love of all thats good, CHECK OUT ETERN
You're right (Score:1)
In fairness to the Cube, we do see pretty much the same games as you get on the Xbox, with some exceptions. It just seems that the heavily promoted games are the "kiddy" flavor that atracts families but not gamers.
Good point though.
Re:You're right (Score:1)
Capcom releasing Disney Sports games on the NGC doesnt help matters any, and they wonder why they sell like ass...they play like ass too. Buy Eternal Darkness. If you like it, get
Re:You're right (Score:1)
Look, (Score:3, Interesting)
It doesn't matter that most people _don't_ use it, it matters that with the GameCube they _can't_ use it.
Even if people aren't particularly planning on getting online, there are good odds that they'll be influenced by the general atmosphere of "XBox is cool because it has online play and GameCube sucks cause it doesn't." Stop expecting people to be rational.
Microsoft's XBox Live is a selling point, even if people don't ever get around to using it. There have been a lot of games for the PC that advertised their multiplayer capability that influenced my opinion at least a little that i never actually got around to playing online or just played one or two games that way. But i bought the game, which is what's important to the company.
And if they don't think people will pay $15 a month for online service then just let them connect directly to each other through their ISP and host the games themselves. I'm far more interested in playing games online with my old college friends and people i know on the east coast than i am with random strangers i've never met on some online service.
Re:Look, (Score:2)
Why can't it? You know there *is* an ethernet addon for the GC.
The fact is that most games _don't_ use it, not that they can't.
Re:Look, (Score:2)
However most players _can't_ use it, unless they're interested in PSO. They certainly _can't_ use it for 99% of the games. Nintendo isn't advertising the ethernet add-on, they're not encouraging companies to make games that use it, they're openly doubting whether online play is important at all.
Microsoft is screaming "We've got online capability! Look at us! We're cool!" Nintendo meanwhile is saying "We don't think the online experience rea
Analysts refuse to admit they are wrong... (Score:1)
Sigh, this is a lot of nonsense from the we-hate-games analysts. Answer me this, is there a Web browser for XBOX live? Or Playstation? If there is it isn't in the starter kit, or emphasized much. Can you use either of them to download movies or mp3s? I mean without installing Linux/BSD/Custom OS because that will not appeal to the mainstrea
Re:Analysts refuse to admit they are wrong... (Score:2)
I think Nintendo's basically right (Score:2)
Nintendo, unlike the other console makers, pretty much has to have some sort of kiddie-friendly system in place before they go online, IMO. As much as I want Xbox Live with a voice communicator, having kids randomly hear profanity is not something I would tolerate as a parent.
Fundamentally I think Nintendo can enter the market late and still dominate it. Ni
Here's what's funny (Score:2)
He bought that rediculous Animal Crossings game, and he told me that it was so great because you can trade items over the Internet. I said oh yeah, how?
turns out you get a code that you write down and you give it to someone else on the net and they and to type it in and then they get that item.
The part that scares me is that he (and I bet millions of other brainwashed Nintendo'ers) think t
Re:Here's what's funny (Score:2, Insightful)
What Nintendo has done is save people from all that bullshit, and make a simple pw system for trading items. It takes 2 mins and works great, so whats the problem?
Re:Here's what's funny (Score:2)
It means you can trade through e-mail, forums whatever.
It's pretty cool to try and go around and fnd that item you need to reach the next level..nnot my sttyle of game, but I can see whypeople like it.
Re:Here's what's funny (Score:2)
The part that scares me is that he (and I bet millions of other brainwashed Nintendo'ers) think that this is actually a cool way of doing this.
It's a brilliant way of doing it, which helped massively with Animal Crossing's success. With private community networked swapping, outsiders would be completely unaware of what was going on in Animal Crossing. But when a public forum needs to have a new folder added purely for AC item swaps, people notice that and get curious about the game and why so many people
Dismisses (Score:3, Insightful)
Sony is basically making a WWW enabled/Cable TV box/TIVO/DVD/MP3 player that also happens to play Playstation games.
Microsoft is on their way to making a (DRM restricted)Windows PC/TIVO/DVD/MP3 player that also happens to play Xbox games.
Nokia has that digital camera/video/text messaging/cellphone (I think) that also just happens to play games.
Nintendo has one console that ONLY plays games and one handheld that ONLY plays games(third party hardware excluded).
If the MS/Sony/Nokia way was better, we'd all be using sporks in our home for silverware. Me, I like my fork and my spoon separate.
true, but (Score:1)
yes, a spork (Score:1)
My $200 dedicated DVD player provides a far better picture and has oodles of better options than the x-box DVD player.
My nice, but rather old CD player holds upto 7 discs while my x-box holds but one.
My Gamecube and PS2 has dozens of great games, my x-box has about 6.
Sure the x-box costs what, like $250 and does all sorts of things half-assed, but lets face it: Combined devices just don't usually excell in any one ar
Another thought occured to me... (Score:1)
If console users could participate in the same on-line games that computer users do, I think we would see a huge increase in on-line play for console owners. Sadly, the only console I see that has the
nintendo does have multiplayer, but not online (Score:1)
Re:nintendo does have multiplayer, but not online (Score:1)
I've tried on-line games and while they're okay there's something missing. Text chatting is so impersonal. If I typed "Get that for me" you don't know if I'm demanding or asking politely.
Would you rather watch a funny movie at the same time as someone else on the other end of a com
Re:nintendo does have multiplayer, but not online (Score:1)
Monthly Fees (Score:1)
----------
Check out Harvest Moon Online [harvestmoononline.com]
(a free online game based on the SNES game)
Am I Alone Here? (Score:3, Insightful)
So Nintendo still isn't pushing the online aspect. So what? If I really wanted to play online games on a console, I would have gotten an Xbox or even a PS2. Guess what: I haven't. Even PC online games don't do much for me (I like being able to shout insults to my opponent in the next room). I myself don't really see how an internet connection could improve my Zelda or Metroid experiences. The only GameCube game I can think of that I'd like an online connection with is Animal Crossing, and even then I'd be perfectly happy with something akin to a Dex Drive.
So you feel that Nintendo is making another "big mistake." So you feel the original GBA was a "big mistake" (and neglect to mention that you bought one anyway). So what? I enjoy playing video games on a purple lunch box and I'm old enough now that other peoples' opinions mean squat to my enjoyment of them.
Re:Am I Alone Here? (Score:1)
Re:Am I Alone Here? (Score:1)
Curiousity.
"Why did you post?"
My $0.02.
"Defend Nintendo blindly."
I wouldn't call it that. Simply because I don't own an Xbox or a PS2 doesn't mean I don't own my share of non-Nintendo consoles. Xbox doesn't hold my interest at all while I'm currently waiting for either another price drop (or two) or a PS2 game that I feel would justify the purchase of the console (there was a time when Final Fantasy alone would have been enough...).
Need is a very strong word... (Score:1)
Well, their first party titles seem to stand well enough on their own (Mario, Metroid, Zelda etc) but I think that they are looking at this the wrong way.
X-box live isn't all that great right now, and neither is Sony's online plan, but at least they have their foot in the water. With the next generation of systems, MS and Sony will already be seen as online systems. Nintendo doesn't seem to want to get into the pool until they are sure that they can take it over and this in t
Online Gaming (Score:2)
MMORPGs, if you have the time and the money.
Diablo II, for the co-op play.
Counter-Strike and Day of Defeat for team-based FPS
Strategy games
Subspace/Continum for serious skill-based team competition. That's about it.
All PC apps..to be honest. Everything else, IMO dies with typical lag for online games. Predictive models break down for platforming/fighting type games.
Most game store employees are idiots. (Score:1)