Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
GameCube (Games) Entertainment Games

Nintendo Dismisses Online For GC Successor 155

Posted by simoniker from the gamecube-live-not-a-big-priority dept.
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."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Nintendo Dismisses Online For GC Successor More

Nintendo Dismisses Online For GC Successor

Comments Filter:

  • Oh Nintendo... (Score:4, Funny)

    by neostorm ( 462848 ) on Monday July 07, 2003 @03:44PM (#6385044)
    Personally I don't play my consoles online since I have my PC for that, but this sounds an awful lot like the time Nintendo brushed aside this new-fangled CD technology in place of good-ol cartridges for the N64...

    Boy did that work out well. Didn't they learn anything?

    • Re:Oh Nintendo... (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Tom7 ( 102298 ) on Monday July 07, 2003 @04:01PM (#6385229) Homepage Journal
      (Well, the GBA is still cartridge based, and they own the portable scene.)

      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)

      by i8urtaco ( 663163 )
      They also brushed aside using CD technology back when Sega came out with SegaCD; the device that arguably and single-handedly started Sega's downfall. That did work out quite well for Nintendo. Except that the CD based SNES ad-on that Nintendo was planning to release turned into the Playstation, so perhaps it was hit-or-miss on that part.
      • In my humble opinion...

        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
        • Add-on perpherials tend to not do good.

          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)

      by Gr33nNight ( 679837 )
      It wasnt the medium that was Nintendos beef with CDs, it was the loading time. Remember those games where it took damn near 5 minutes for the game to load? Miyamoto hated that. Once they could figure out how to eliminate (or reduce greatly) loading times, Nintendo embraced CD technology greatly. The same is with online gaming. When Nintendo figures out how us consumers can play online without shelling out money every month (and still make a profit) they will embrace that too.
      • That's nice in theory, however Nintendo needs to be less in tune with what Miyamoto thinks is a good or bad thing, and more in tune with what the consumer wants to buy.

        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)

          by Gr33nNight ( 679837 )
          In case you dont realize, SNES did win the console wars of that generation. It was a long battle, and yes the Genesis was ahead some of the time, but the SNES came out on top. Now the N64 is a different story. It is my firm belief that it is because of Square and Enix defecting that the N64 didnt do too swell. They are huge in Japan, and sad to say, during the n64 cycle (and maybe now too), Japan is what mattered most.

          Regardless of sales and popularity, the n64 did make a big profit for Nintendo. Th

          • Re:Oh Nintendo... (Score:2, Interesting)

            by Daetrin ( 576516 )
            In case you dont realize, SNES did win the console wars of that generation.

            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

      • There's no technical hurdle out there preventing players from setting up their own console as a server for their friends to connect to. You can do it with some XBox and PS2 games already.

        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,
    • Wouldn't you be tempted to brush aside CD technology when all it had to show at the time was 7th Guest and maybe some Myst?

  • Maybe nintendo's plan is... (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Verloc ( 119412 ) on Monday July 07, 2003 @03:48PM (#6385079)
    to just concentrate on the pure gaming consoles; I personally think they'd need some better games to do that though. Thank god for Zelda.

    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)

    by Zed2K ( 313037 )
    The console public really is not ready for online gaming. Online gaming in general is a really neat sounding idea, but its just not what its cracked up to be. No one wants to pay 40-50 for the game then also have to pay a monthly fee to play online on top of their internet costs.

    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)

      by Kethinov ( 636034 )

      The console public really is not ready for online gaming

      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.

      Online gaming in general is a really neat sounding idea, but its just not what its cracked up to be. No one wants to pay 40-50 for the game th

      • Re:Nintendo is wrong (Score:3, Insightful)

        by leifm ( 641850 )
        Last I checked, Quake3 didn't have a monthly fee.

        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.
        • " 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."

          xbox live lets you run your own game server. atleast on some games.

        • Last I checked, Quake3 didn't have a monthly fee.

          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.

          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

          • Why do they even need to have seperate server software? The new MarioKart can run on eight GameCubes over a local LAN, how hard would it be to slap on an TCP/IP protocal and run it through the users' ISPs?

            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.

            • how hard would it be to slap on an TCP/IP protocal and run it through the users' ISPs?
              Not hard at all. But that would require me actually buying a GC which I refuse to do. Console games are great, but I'll never buy a console. Computers are so much more useful. So until Nintendo starts selling their games for computers, I'm going to continue to use emulators and play my bought/rented games that way.

              • Re:Nintendo is wrong (Score:3, Interesting)

                by Daetrin ( 576516 )
                Not hard at all. But that would require me actually buying a GC which I refuse to do. Console games are great, but I'll never buy a console. Computers are so much more useful. So until Nintendo starts selling their games for computers, I'm going to continue to use emulators and play my bought/rented games that way.

                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

          • Wasn't that in a way how the PS3/cell thing was supposed to work, some huge distributed network powering massive online games? I thought it was a bit ambitious and destined to fail, but it's a nice idea.

      • Re:Nintendo is wrong (Score:2, Interesting)

        by Zed2K ( 313037 )
        "Nintendo should start making online games for the PC. They're quality game makers and they need to crawl out from under the console-only rock."

        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
      • Last I checked, Quake3 didn't have a monthly fee. People don't want MMORPGs, people want MMOGs. There's a difference.

        Who's gonna host the servers? That's what I thought.
      • 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.

        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
    • "The analyst is wrong. Game consoles are NOT home entertainment devices, they are game consoles. "

      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
      • 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.

        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 ;)
      • I doubt that the PS3 will sell as well as the PS2 did. A lot of people bought it because it was a game system and also a DVD player.

        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

    • No, the public is quite ready for online gaming, and in fact are paying for and using it right now. My xbox costs $50/year for online gaming and is about the easiest thing in the world to set up. My brother is a die-hard nintendo fan who just moved back to the states. I couldn't get him to play anything besides gamecube games when he came back because he just liked them better (and yes, I have a GC too). But where he's living now, 3000 miles away from me, he has an xbox with live. He has been calling me co

  • PSO (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Allison Geode ( 598914 ) on Monday July 07, 2003 @03:49PM (#6385092)
    well, there's only one online game FOR The gamecube right now. I payed the $10 monthly fee for PSO for about 4 months, but got tired of it. the problem is, nintendo seems to expect third parties (like sega) to fill that void where there is no online multiplayer, and right now, the only really viable market for online console gaming is Live. nobody wants to have to set up their own network: "let microsoft do it for us!" except for sega, who has always boldly gone where no game company has gone before... often to their detriment, since they go there before the rest of the industry is ready to follow.
    • Is there a central body that sets up an online environment for PC online games? If you play (played) an online game for PC, be it Ultima Online, Everquest or even Starcraft a few years back, you logged onto to that company's server. Sure, you had to logon to Battlenet for Blizzard games, but those were Blizzard's games. If a company wants to produce an online game for PC, they support the online functionality. Nintendo and SONY have it correct in that game vendors supply the servers.

      Now, if Nintendo

  • History Repeats (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Jerf ( 17166 ) on Monday July 07, 2003 @03:56PM (#6385177) Journal
    How many times can they miss the boat and still survive?

    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!
    • The N64 was also seriously flawed because Nintendo

      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.

      • Yes, but overall, it was a failure because they lost vast amounts of marketshare to Sony.

        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.
        • Nintendo has really fantastic first party games. And really, that and the game boy are about the only things keeping them afloat.

          Umm, I'd just like to point out ... duh? They make good products, and it keeps them afloat. Hell, not just afloat, but practially surfing their incredibly profitable niche.

          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
          • Umm, I'd just like to point out ... duh? They make good products, and it keeps them afloat. Hell, not just afloat, but practially surfing their incredibly profitable niche.

            Notice even you say "their ... niche". There was a time not so long ago that Nintendo wasn't a niche player. Why are they a niche market now? Because they haven't paid attention to the market. And they still aren't. If they keep making mistakes, they'll go from a powerhouse to a niche player to a company that is no longer profitabl
            • But their 'niche' is much bigger today than the whole market was when they were dominating it. What is wrong with doing very well in a niche? Why does western (well, US anyway) business believe the only way to be considered successful is to have a monopoly?

              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
      • While you're facts are right, I think I disagree with your opinion that Nintendo is trying to duplicate the N64.

        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)

        by Jerf ( 17166 )
        Not to take away from your post but the N64 - financially, was a sucuess.

        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)

      by savagegus ( 56031 ) on Monday July 07, 2003 @05:59PM (#6386411) Homepage
      I think you missed the point. Nintendo currently offers an ethernet adapter for the game cube and I don't think that would change for a newer system. The issue is whether or not running an online service like Xbox Live is a crippling mistake.
    • If Nintendo had no competition, I'm sure that we'd be getting the N64 any year now...
  • $15 for the subscription plus the $30~$60 for a cable modem (for those of us in the US). Plus you actually have to buy the game ($40-$60). In the end that's a lot of moolah to play what, F-Zero with 3 of your friends (or enemies)?
  • Game Consoles are NOT meant to evolve, they're meant to PLAY GAMES. I don't want an all-in-one-do-everything-WebTV. That's what my PC is for, thats what my Tivo is for. When I buy a console, I want to PLAY GAMES, and that's it! Online games are just an extra feature, there isn't anything special about them, and it certainly doesn't add anything to gameplay unless the single player is horrible to begin with. Playing with friends on a console needs to be done on the living room floor NEXT TO EACH OTHER. Doing

  • How well have the other two really done? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by leifm ( 641850 ) on Monday July 07, 2003 @04:12PM (#6385333)
    I haven't heard much about either XBOX Live or the PS2 online stuff since they launched. I would be interested to see the numbers of XBox in the wild, and the number of those that are using XBOX Live. It seems to me that that the service has a pretty narrow audience. You have to have the XBOX, have to have broadband, have to be willing to get hardware to get it online (cable, hub, WiFi, etc), possibly run cable, and then buy the Live kit. How many people are actually doing this? Same goes for the PS2 network except I would think the audience is a bit wider there since some games will deal with dial-up.

    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.
    • I know that Xbox Live have over 400,000 subscribers, that's not bad at all. PS2 is planning to have more and more online enabled games.
      • 400k online is that domestic or worldwide? How many XBOX are there in customers hands?

        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.
        • 400k is worldwide but it just came out in Europe a couple of months ago. I think there are like 6 million Xboxes, not exactly sure about the number.
          The price will still be $50/year.
        • I think if XBox can get 400,000 people online with all the problems going against online gameing that you mentioned, even if that figure is worldwide, it indicates that there's enough potential there to be worth being concerned about for the next generation consoles. 400,000 now could easily turn into 4 million in five years.
      • But that's, what, about 3% of the 13 million XBox owners out there. I remember reading somewhere that SOCOM for PS2 had sold something more than 600,000 copies, but even assuming that all those purchasers play on-line, that's an even smaller percentage of PS2s out there. I realize there's all sorts of reasons these numbers aren't entirely accurate, but it still seems to me that the on-line playing subset of console owners is very, very small.
        • Another interesting thing I have notice, and I could be making a blanket statement here, is that XBOX owners in general don't seem to be a) all that into gaming b) tech savvy. The number of people I have seen wandering around rental places asking how to make their XBOX be online is pretty high. The XBOX also seems to sell to a crowd of older males that seem to see gaming validated as not geeky because MS is making a console, and as you know MS is technology.
        • The percentage of PC owners who play online games is also pretty small, but do we say that's a failure?

  • Better Article (Score:4, Informative)

    by Ian_Bailey ( 469273 ) on Monday July 07, 2003 @04:14PM (#6385342) Homepage Journal
    The much better article on gamesindustry.biz [gamesindustry.biz] doesn't leave out some important details that like this article. Mainly:

    "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?
  • They should concentrate on multiplayer games. It would be cool to be able to play Mario Tennis and Mario Kart online and it'd be even better if they had a voice communicator but yet again they don't seem to care. Why do I play my Xbox most of all? Because of its variety of voice-enabled multiplayer games.
    • Maybe you should start gaming on your PC then. It has the largest library of multiplayer games.

      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.

    • 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.

  • Am I the only one who remembers that the SNES had an accessory that allowed you to play online way back in 1995? You'd pop your game into a modem, then stick it in the system, much like using Game Genie. I think they were the first console to do this, in fact. Now they seem to have changed their minds completely.
    • They were definitely not the first

      Atari 2600 Gameline [atarihq.com]

    • Sega Genesis also had something similar. If i fan through my old EGMs I might be able to find the name of it.
    • X-Band maybe? Made by Taito or THQ? I can't remember which, but I'm pretty sure it was made by someone who had no business making it. I remember thinking about getting the Sega version so I could play 12 player NHL 94.

      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

      • I remember the Sega Channel, my buddy had it. You had a special (and very large if I remember correctly) cartridge that plugged into your Genesis. Plug the cable into it, use it to download games. The selection changed monthly, and you had to wait for the whole game to download each time you wanted to play it. It was cool at the time, but I didn't get to mess around with it much because I had a Super Nintendo.
    • Actually, you're somewhat mistaken; Nintendo didn't make the product you're thinking of. That was the X-Band [fatmangames.com], and it was by all acounnts a quality system. However, the system is down now, since the SNES is all but dead ;)

      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)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Parents, and that's who we are talking about for most GC games, will not pay for the game, for on-line games fees, for a gaming dial-up provider and for their existing PC dsl/dial-up. If you think AOL or MSN want to pay for high-bandwidth gaming you're nuts. Parents do not want to to hand over their credit cards to their little darlings to go on-line for a recuring fee and who knows what else in expenses.

    Plus is just dosent make any cents for publisher to set up a high overhead, high maintance product li

    • The Xbox Live costs $50/year. That's like the cost of one game. Not much
      • On average though, how many games does a person buy a year? I'd guess only 3 or 4. Sure, I know some people will pick up 3 or 4 games a month, but we're talking about the massses. They probably pick up the annual Madden game, maybe a basketball or hockey game and then a fighting and action game.

        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.

      • 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)

    by pmz ( 462998 ) on Monday July 07, 2003 @04:32PM (#6385568) Homepage
    On-line gameplay looks very expensive to me (money for network adapter, money for game set-up, monthly money for ISP service, monthly money for each on-line game). I always remembered Nintendo at its best with either single-player games or two or four-way games that kids would play with friends. I even played single-player games with friends, where we would take turns or play in a driver/navigator mode.

    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.
    • What are you talking about? Let's examine the Xbox vs the expenses that you have described. Money for network adapter? No, the Ethernet port is built-in and comes with the system. Money for game setup? What does that even mean? There is no setup, you buy the game, put it in the console, and play online. 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. I'd be paying ISP charges
      • Money for game setup? What does that even mean? There is no setup, you buy the game, put it in the console...

        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
  • I've looked at the on-line offerings for the PS2, GC and Xbox and by far the Xbox strategy is the most attractive. I know that with my subscription to Xbox Live and an on-line enabled game I can play on-line. The problem is even with the ease of Xbox Live I still do not necessarily want to invest hours of my life playing with complete strangers. It's a nice diversion, but it isn't the end-all-be-all that some companies think it will be. I can see Nintendo's point, to a degree, do they really want to invest
    • There are some adult games for the NGC. Check out Eternal Darkness, one of the most underrated games out for the console. It seriously kicks ass. You can find it for $20 now, and that is a great price for such an excellent game.

      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
      • I just checked Eternal Darkness out on Gamespot, it gets a fantastic review and the game looks fantastic. Sadly, almost no one I have talked to has ever heard of this game. I am going to have a peek for it at EB.

        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.
        • The 'kiddy' image is what Nintendo needs to shake the most...it is killing them. Alot of gamers today are more worried about image than having fun. They look at Zelda, and think its for kids, and that they will be called kids if they play it. Alot of them do not try it out, and see if they would have a good time playing it.

          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
          • Way to project your feelings about image vs gameplay onto others. Nintendo wants that image so let them have it. Zelda is not for kids because of the image, its for kids because of the gameplay. I know 4 people who finished that game and not one of them died even once. They were all disappointed. Zelda wasn't always about taking photographs. WTF? Defend Nintendo blindly. Check.

  • Look, (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Daetrin ( 576516 ) on Monday July 07, 2003 @04:44PM (#6385736)
    I don't care about your numbers and your demographics or whatever, lack of online capability is a PR killer.

    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.

    • It doesn't matter that most people _don't_ use it, it matters that with the GameCube they _can't_ use it.

      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.
      • The fact is that most games _don't_ use it, not that they can't.

        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

  • 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.

    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

    • Actually, there are Japanese GC variants that play CDs and DVDs. There's no official US release, but the number of imports will likely be quite high once the copied-game protection on the GC is broken, and that may induce the manufacturer (Panasonic, I think?) to begin marketing here, if that's allowed by their contract with Nintendo.
  • I agree with Nintendo's stance mostly. They've said that online hasn't been proven for anything except MMORPGs and FPSs, and that seems to be right.

    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
  • I know this kid who has worshipped Nintendo his whole life, and now he is old enough he bought his own game cube.

    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

    • Heaven forbid you have to write something down! Maybe it would be easier for you to shell out $50 to buy a broadband adapter, then a cable modem connection, then spend time setting it all up, just so you can trade a couple items in Animal Crossing (which kicks ass BTW).

      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?
    • Actually it is a cool way to do things. It's different.

      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.

    • 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)

    by techstar25 ( 556988 ) <techstar25 AT gmail DOT com> on Monday July 07, 2003 @05:31PM (#6386177) Journal
    If you read the article, he says it's a consideration that they're looking into. I'm not sure how that can be seen as dismissing. He's right about one thing though...no one is paying for subscriptions, or at least not enough for Nintendo to care. They have their revenue streams and the money is pouring in. MS and Sony are not exactly making a killing on those online subscriptions. Nonetheless in the future it will be interesting to see where Nintendo takes their console, since ...
    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. ;)
    • you forget that sporks dont work as well as forks and spoons. my XBOX plays DVDs just as well as any other DVD player, plays CDs as well as any other CD player (and has visualizations to boot), can double as an mp3 jukebox just as good as any other mp3 jukebox.... not to mention the stunning games that it is meant for. whereas a spork's spoon side has holes in it and is far too clumsy and blunt to use as a fork; my XBOX performs all the functions it claims to exceptionally.
      • You must have a magic x-box then cause mine doesn't quite live up to that image.

        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
  • I was speaking to some friends about the disparity in on-line gaming that you see between computers and consoles. Obviously, the almost ubiquitous presence of DSL or cable connections for computer users (at least in Canada) and the depth of market penetration for computers feeds the desire for on-line gaming.

    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
  • one thing that gets me is the people complaining "oh nintendo is so silly, not focusing on multiplayer". I disagree, and anyone who has ever enjoyed a good round of Super Smash Bros. Melee probably would, as well. the difference is that Nintendo's Multiplayer is much more intimate and personal. I find my Smash Bros. fests to be much more entertaining than fragging some faceless butthead who will probably just accuse me of cheating for being a better player than him. I rarely play games online anymore, but
    • That's exactly why the GC is such a great system. It's the perfect system from having some friends over on a friday night and having a great time. All the goofing around, the smack talk, laughing, it makes for an enjoyable time.

      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

  • I don't even pay for games like EQ or AC, there is no way I would pay for a gamecube online gaming plan. Maybe it's just me, but I an content playing my offline games on GC.
    ----------
    Check out Harvest Moon Online [harvestmoononline.com]
    (a free online game based on the SNES game)

  • Am I Alone Here? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Guppy06 ( 410832 ) on Monday July 07, 2003 @07:13PM (#6386991)
    It seems that most of the posts on here are generally anti-Nintendo in general and pro-online in particular. Am I the only one here that:
    1. Owns an N64?
    2. Likes the N64 and its games?
    3. Likes the GameCube?
    "Should have gone with CDs" this and "Missed the boat" that, I really don't care what the analysts (both real and self-imagined) have to say on the topic: I'm still tickled pink by my N64 library, even if you feel the games were "hopelessly cripled" by the "cramped memory" in the cartridge format.

    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.
    • If other people's opinions mean squat, why did you read this thread? Why did you post? Defend Nintendo blindly. Check.
      • "why did you read this thread?"

        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...).
  • Does Nintendo need online?

    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, to be honest, is overrated.Deatchmatching, to be honest is a waste. Good team-play as well is hard to find. What is fun??

    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.

Slashdot Top Deals

Real Programmers don't eat quiche. They eat Twinkies and Szechwan food.

Close