Iwata: We "do not want online games"

By Kristan Reed Published 5 July, 2004

Still isn't important, says boss.

Nintendo president Satoru Iwata has given an extensive talk on the state of the industry to the Japan Economic Foundation - including evidence from sales figures which he claims prove that online gaming is not yet an important factor.

Iwata presented sales figures for a PS2 online golf title which failed to match the sales of its offline predecessor (Sony's own Minna no Golf / Everybody's Golf titles, released in the west as Hot Shots Golf) as "proof that customers do not want online games."

According to highlights of his presentation which have been posted online, Iwata told the foundation that "most customers do not wish to pay the extra money for connection to the Internet, and for some customers, connection procedures to the Internet are still not easy."

Alone out of the three major platform holders in the current generation of hardware, Nintendo has been reluctant to commit to online gaming; the company launched a modem and broadband adapter for the console in order to support online titles from other companies, but has not developed any such titles of its own.

With both Sony and Microsoft's future console plans featuring online as a core component, it's still not clear how Nintendo will incorporate connectivity into its next-generation "Revolution" console - if at all.

However, the company has been much more positive about the potential of wireless connectivity for its handheld devices, launching a successful wireless adapter for the Game Boy Advance and integrating both Bluetooth and 802.11b Wireless LAN technologies into the forthcoming Nintendo DS handheld.

Elsewhere in his address to the foundation, Iwata also covered the perception of Nintendo as a company which targets its products largely at the kids market. "Game software should neither be exclusively be targeted at children nor adults," he said. "Instead, we will develop software which anyone can instantly understand."

However, he did acknowledge the growing trend within the industry for creating mature games, adding simply that "at the same time, production of software readily acceptable to adults is worth studying."

Speaking about Nintendo's relationships with third-party companies, Iwata hinted that more development deals with Western developers could be in the pipeline. "We intend to expand tie-ups not only with Japanese companies but also with foreign companies," he said. "We are now holding negotiations with major Western game developers and will be able to conclude a deal by the end of the year if things go smoothly."

He also touched briefly on the subject of Nintendo's ongoing relationship with Bandai - and this time strayed from his usual script on the subject by not directly denying the possibility of a takeover or merger, saying only that "a closer relationship would be beneficial for both sides and it will be nice if the two companies can work together in doing something interesting."

Picture of Kristan.

About Kristan Reed

Kristan is a former editor of Eurogamer, dad, Stone Roses bore and Norwich City supporter who sometimes mutters optimistically about Team Silent getting back together.

Read more articles from Kristan by visiting the Kristan Reed archive page.

You may also like...

Comments (121) Latest comment 8 years ago

Comments threads automatically close after 30 days, but please feel free to continue chatting on the forum!

  • terminalterror #1 8 years ago

    Elsewhere in his address to the foundation, Iwata also covered the perception of Nintendo as a company which targets its products largely at the kids market. "Game software should neither be exclusively be targeted at children nor adults," he said. "Instead, we will develop software which anyone can instantly understand."

    They really should put more effort into making that clear. "MaR1o iz 4 k1dDi3z!" really pisses me off.

  • boo #2 8 years ago

    I have to say I agree (with Iwata, not necessarily TT). I have no interest in online gaming whatsoever. I'm fine with additional online content, but when the offline game suffers because developers are keen (or have been encouraged) to include an online mode, then I get a bit annoyed.
    Why should I pay full price when I'm only using part of the product.

    /goes off in a huff

  • pjmaybe #3 8 years ago

    "European Customers do not want any new releases" - Iwata yesterday.

    Peej

  • uiruki #4 8 years ago

    The Everybody's golf argument is irrelevant; to play that game, you need to buy a 15,000 yen HDD. Of course more people are going to buy the game which doesn't require more hardware.

  • Kay #5 8 years ago

    It is worrying that most games seem to be heading in an online direction. I quite like the idea of online gaming, and there's nothing wrong with making games with online features. However, when games rely on said online features to promote a game then that is wrong. There are still a lot of people who can't play online, and developers should make sure that they do not alienate this section of the game playing public.

  • Whizzo #6 8 years ago

    Nintendo knows best!

    Golf games are hardly the best indicators of whether people want to play online or not. Jesus if they stick their heads any further into the sand they'll disappear.

  • Peekaboo #7 8 years ago

    The programmer -Ah, but how many millions more don't bother with online gaming ? You have something like 70 Million PS2 sold and something like 15 Million XB's sold. Now I can't for the life of me see the majority of those systems having an owner that plays online. I for one can't be arsed with the whole online gaming thing, thats not to say that you shouldn't have it and enjoy it, just that perhaps Iwata has a point that it shouldn't really be a focal point. Just give me good games.

  • Blerk #8 8 years ago

    In a way he's right - most people don't care about the online stuff, especially in the UK where broadband is still bastard expensive.

    But to ignore the people who do want it is taking it a bit too far. Would it really kill 'em to include an online option in their multiplayer titles so that you at least have the possibility of playing online if you want? That way you please everyone, surely?

  • JaysonG #9 8 years ago

    I have to say I agree. I have no interest in new releases whatsoever. I'm fine with additional patches and mods for old games, but when the original game suffers because developers are keen (or have been encouraged) to create a new and improved gaming experience, then I get a bit annoyed.
    Why should I pay full price when I can still play the old game.

    /goes off in a huff

  • IronGiant #10 8 years ago

    It's nice and safe with your head buried in the sand.. Hot Shots Golf isn't a good yardstick, he should look at how popular PC online gaming is and increasingly XBox Live.

  • Kiigan #11 8 years ago

    Oh yes that's right - a single example of an underperforming online golf game clearly indicates that no-one wants to play online games at all.

    Never mind the hundreds of thousands of Xbox Live subscribers -all of those consumers are just wrong. So are all the western PC online gamers, and the kids filling up the jam-packed net cafes in Sth. Korea. They're all wrong. La la la!

    First of all we had Gosen telling us there was no future for a product such as GTA. Y'know, one of the biggest selling games of all time. Now we have Iwata telling us no one wants to play online games. Oh the hilarity.

  • CyberClaw #12 8 years ago

    They are trying to convince themselves. They are also so full of bull, that they make me laugh.
    Every 1st party Nintendo game comes with stars, which you can redem into your account on their Website, and their website only. Every now and then, this website gets filled with goodies, like GBA Players, or Zelda Bonus Disks, that kind of stuff, which can be traded by the accumulated stars of a player. The merchandise disapears in a matter of minutes, and they take like 6 months to put something worth spending your stars in.

    Now, if their costumers don't want to play online, why do they include a small prise, which is redeemable only online in every single 1st party product they include? Moreover, the worth getting prizes, are sold out in a matter of minutes, until restocked, and then sold out in a matter of minutes again, which shows the number of eager internauts who consume Nintendo merchandise.

    If you ask me, the only reason we don't have online support from Nintendo, is because they don't want to spend money on online servers. They try to convince their higher bosses that XBox Live sucks, and Sony don't know what they are doing, they try to convince themselves that online isn't feaseble yet - and they try to convince us, consumers that we don't want online (through online presentations and E3 demos we download online) featuring other gameplay features instead of online, like for example conectivity, which we consumers are obviously eager to use (or maybe they are eager to sell on us, since that way they sell more GBAs, and more GBA versions of the GC game).

    In the end, all I can say, is that Nintendo is probably going to go back to the cartidges in their next gen console. (which you shouldn't take to the letter, but more on a "Nintendo's way of thinking";)

  • Errol #13 8 years ago

    This Iwata geezer is a complete idiot ! lol.

  • pjmaybe #14 8 years ago

    Thinkin' about it though, there's not really that many games in the Nintendo mould that would work that well online.

    Metroid Prime perhaps, a bit of Mario Kart...

    Maybe Pikmin 2's co-op effort...

    Peej

  • Tiger_Walts #15 8 years ago

    "Who's Dave Gosen?" - Iwata, probably.
    Edited by 1 at 05/07/04 @ 17:31

  • Jos #16 8 years ago

    Not a surprising comment given his audience. The economics of console online gaming are not as bright as offline gaming. Yet (before anyone throws their toys out of the interpram).

    Not saying having online bits in a game is bad, but does it pay the rent yet???

  • gizmo #17 8 years ago

    Absolute bullshit. Live is great, I can play an hour of PGR2 or Rainbow 6 without the hassle of trying to get 4 plus mates together - and have a chat along the way. Battlefield 1942/BF vietnam have rarely been out of my pc's drive. Its the future.

    Maybe if he says it enough times, whilst spinning round and holding his breath it will come true.

  • ruttyboy #18 8 years ago

    Aah but we here denizens are the 'hardcore', those most likely to be on-line and enjoy on-line gaming. If we had a similar percentage of 'casual' gamers here (being vocal) then the story would be very different I suspect.

  • KyuZo #19 8 years ago

    Um, I want online games.... good online games.

  • Kami #20 8 years ago

    I think people are confusing ONLINE CONSOLE GAMING with ONLINE PC GAMING.

    And - I know this will come as a dirty big shock - Online Console Gaming isn't as popular as Microsoft want us to believe. It should not be ignored, I agree, but it's not very popular - moreso here in PAL regions, where we have doggedly been swimming against then current.

    Online PC Gaming - guess what? - it's HUGE.

    The difference is: One is a console. One is a PC.


    We shouldn't ignore it but right now, we just DON'T CARE ENOUGH for people like Nintendo to consider online options. And it's not just Nintendo either... Capcom, for example, realised we didn't care enough for Online Play.


    To be honest, online console gaming WILL be rare for a while because it seems a vast majority of us don't want it. And therefore, if it's not going to work out with a profit for the company in the end - they aren't going to bother. We have to be willing to pay for it. We have to be willing to use it. We are doing neither very much.


    So I think branding Nintendo evil over this is a it harsh... maybe when people care more for linking their consoles up, then we may see more online modes and options. But not until. We have to want it - and I mean WE as a whole region, not just those dissenting voices that seem to be bubbling up and think they're loud enough to demand change to how things work.


    Online gaming is very popular... just not yet through consoles. And until we show a bigger interest, things won't change.

  • IronGiant #21 8 years ago

    Yes all true and i agree but MS and Sony have dipped a big toe in the water this generation and will literally start forcing online as being a huge part of gaming with the next gen consoles.

    Im sure that's the way they want gaming to go, constantly online so you play online, download levels or even entire games and probably films/music from Sony.

    Maybe Nintendo will find a successful business model by selling games offline in shops, which i have to say i prefer! :)

  • Navi #22 8 years ago

    I'd consider myself a pretty serious gamer, yet I'd have to say that online play has never interested me, so I can see why he has this point of view. I certainly prefer offline play to be the main focus.

    That said, I think he's got his head in the sand a little too much to say that nobody wants online gaming, as many of you here have pointed out.

  • groovychainsaw #23 8 years ago

    Here here - more coop games.. on one console... ive had more fun playing those recently than any amount of online gaming - pc or otherwise - not everyone has loads of mates who are always online but mst people have some mates who live near them, surely? And im fed up with the main game being hampered by the online options (although i do believe that online upgrades/extra levels etc. is a good thing, and should be encouraged...)

  • malloc #24 8 years ago

    It maybe the future, but not the present. Those seem fair enough comments. Online has hardly exploded despite what the xbox fanboys say.

    N are hardly against it, in fact they were pretty much the first to go for it, not to mention the DS.

  • TipTop #25 8 years ago

    /engages BabelFish

    Iwata Translation

    We cant afford / be bothered / know how to do online gaming therefore we will create spurious reasons for not doing it.

    Basically this is head in the sand stuff from Nintendo. Online gaming is a growing sector. Online games are going to sell more XBox's and PS3's. Online games are sought out by customers. Just because you cant compete doesn't give you a platform to make stupid remarks.

  • MikeP #26 8 years ago

    Although online might not yet be that important to the majority, if you look a few years down the line as broadband penetration increases then the experience of MS particularly will stand them in good stead.

    They are banking on a future where more and more people play games socially via the net - ubiquitous broadband makes that achievable. Nintendo probably don't have the cash to experiment like Sony and MS, so they have to be cautious.

    I also think that the "casual" gamer may be more attracted to this type of experience. Play with a mate or mates for an hour, have a chat and a laugh.

    We're definitely not there yet, but when we are then Nintendo will either be marginalized or have a mountain to climb. But then what do they care? Japanese home-based internet penetration is signficantly lower than the US and Europe, and that's the territory they seem most interested in.

    At the end of the day, I don't think Ninty want to play the same game as the other two console manufacturers.
    Edited by 1 at 05/07/04 @ 18:16

  • perilikid #27 8 years ago

    It seems a little strange to dismiss online console gaming as a minority attraction; after all, wasn't (isn't?) gaming in general considered by many to be a minority leisure pursuit? It seems even more ironic that Nintendo should be hinting at this in their statement, given that they have generally been held by commentators and fans as the one gaming company that's interested in offering a very specific form of gaming to the 'minority' that enjoys 'proper' games.

    It's taken me ages to get online, but I'm finally there; and I'm looking forward to linking up not only with complete strangers but also with friends to play games like SC:pT or Top Spin online. Connectivity's a fantastic idea - and a cheap one, after all - but that aside, if I were to set aside an hour for gaming one evening, I know how much more value I'd gain from it by switching on my Xbox, connecting to Live and playing, rather than packing everything up, taking public transport to get to my friend's house, unpacking everything, playing, then packing everything up, etc... IMO Xbox Live provides for casual gaming. Gathering three other friends for an evening's worth of play isn't casual.
    Edited by 2 at 05/07/04 @ 18:18

  • Whizzo #28 8 years ago

    Someone's missing the point...

    Iwata says because of poor sales of an online capable golf game, in comparison to an non-online predecessor, it proves no-one wants online games.

    That's such a specious argument it can't be defended.

  • CyberClaw #29 8 years ago

    Kami your Capcom example is indeed excelent. Capcom. Yea, Capcom doesn't care for online gaming... I mean, they were the first to make a 2d fighting online game (Capcom vs SNK EO in the XBLive), and they dedicated the squel to their most excentric game ever (Steel Batalion) to almost an online mode (SB Line of Contact or some shit like that).
    Dude, I mean, they even made a freaking Resident Evil online game... Sure, here in Europe we got forked on that game, but we are used to the treatment from Japanese companies anyway (Square, Nintendo, and Capcom...).
    I mean who even doubts that online is the future? Did you play SC PT online? The diea of the game is suberb! Of course, Nintendo is so freaking afraid, as usual, that they don't want to stick their neck out and sell us the future now. Nope, when every freaking one is already playing online, then Nintendo will "bravely venture" into it... Fuck you Nintendo. The future won't come, if some people don't start working on it today.

    Let me put this on another perspective. When Nintendo got pissed with Sony and abandoned their shared Playstation project, and then decided jumping the competition developing a 64 bit console, they used a cartidge. I mean, since the Mega Drive 32X, the cartidges had been left at side. Mega CD, Sega Saturn, NeoGeo CD, Playstation. They all focused on CDs, which could take arround 700 Megs of memory. Nintendo, trying to develop a "superior" console, developed a thurd, whose games could not be bigger than 32 Meg. 32 MEG! I mean, that's the size that Kasumi's left boobs takes in DOA3.

    Nintendo a long time ago, in a country far far away, took the chances by investing in a dead market, the videogames market, with their NES. Kudos Nintendo. You were brave, bold, and you took your prise. Now you are the worst of the 3, and not making an effort to get any better. What have you come to Nintendo...

  • Kami #30 8 years ago

    Duh, I meant in PAL regions.

    Online in PAL regions (Europe and Australia) hasn't taken off. Capcom have really held back on these great online features for OUR REGION. RE Outbreak the best example: the price gap of implementing online play and the actual projected income were too wide to justify such a move.

    Nintendo were far too broad: FFXI in America/Japan does show console gaming can work: IN THE RIGHT CIRCUMSTANCES. You need the right game. The right style. Everything has to be right. And even then, you're not guaranteed any level of success. But here in Europe, we haven't taken to OCG as much as perhaps the rest of the world has.

    Point is: if we're not going to use it, we're not willing to pay for it, then we ain't gonna get it. Attitudes of the PUBLIC need to change as well as attitudes of companies.


    It's all well and good shouting at me, and Nintendo, and all the other companies at fault... but we aren't giving them any real hope, are we?


    I certainly would like to see online console games take off much more. It might happen with the arrival of FFXI. But I don't think it's going to happen until WE get our heads out of the ground (WE as a collective for our region and not specifics) and start giving companies more faith in their online dreams.


    We Brits are probably the worst... we're a stingy, penny-pinching lot in a lot of respects. When games are free to play online via PC and not via console, is it any wonder we choose our PC's?


    It's going to take work on BOTH sides. Stop pointing fingers at the companies all the time. We aren't exactly helping them figure out what we want...


    It'll take time. Opinions need to change on all sides first. And from thereon, I don't think we're going to see a surge in online gaming through our consoles...

    I think we'll get there. I hope we'll get there. It's just not going to be something that can be easily done and it's not going to happen overnight. (Which, reading some of the comments, is what some may be wanting to happen...)

  • CyberClaw #31 8 years ago

    Oh sorry maybe you missed the XBox Live launch in here... Or Playstation Online. or DreamCast...
    As for Capcom, they simply didn't convert RE Outbreak because Sony fucked up their European network (it works differently frmo the NTSC network apparently). That's why RE Outbreak doesn't have online mode in Europe. Other Capcom games, like I said, Capcom vs SNK, provide worldwide online gaming. You can playing a 2d fighter against a japanese from your sofa. How cool is that? Anyhow, the reason why they have their PAL version of XBox games working online, is because MS has a good online service. Sony has it's network somewhat fragmented, and a code that would run in their NTSC network, needs to be reworked from ground zero here - and it's hard to sync with the NTSC counterpart. So, Sony is to blame, not Capcom. Sony doesn't provide the support, nor the infastructures. But look at the good. MS is kicking ass online left and right. And let me tell you, just readin Bungie's weekly updates, and earing them tell us they have something big for XBox Live, not done before... it just gives me the shivers. I mean, it's Bungie. They are making Halo 2. The game smells great, I can't wait to put my teeth in it, and they keep teasing me telling me it'll come with a special toppig, and 2 strippers as a bonus. 2 virgin strippers!

    Online consoles can be done. Online consoles is being done massivly for over 4 years (since the DC launch). Nintendo just is afraid to swim to the future, because, the water is too cold. Yep, let's wait for MS and SOny to perfect their online merchandise, and when they've peed enough, then Nintendo can come in, cause it's already nice and warm.

    I really don't like imitators. I like inovators. I don't want to wait for Nintendo to recognise there is online. They should be trying to sell us the products of tommorrow. Not telling us that we DONT WANT THE PRODUCTS for now, because they don't have the money to invest... Fusk them. MS invested, and provides an excelent product. Sony invested, and provides a so-so free product. Nintendo, is ass well up in the air, and head well down under the sand. Keep like that. Just don't tell us what we want. We know what we want. That's why we play XBox and PS2 online every day, while our Cubes are collecting dust until Mario 128 is released...

  • Khab #32 8 years ago

    Jaysis, everyone's getting their knickers in a twist over this one!

    You know, just because Nintendo don't see the profit in going online (and I understand them - MS has spent untold millions promoting Live, and they don't even have five per cent of their installed base signed up) doesn't mean that they're putting their head in the sand. I myself find that while playing online occasionally is fun, I prefer multiplayer gaming with people right next to me.

    Let's face it, no matter how good a service is, there'll always be arsehats around that just ruin the game because they think it's fun to be a bastard to people. Just look at Pandora Tomorrow - a brilliant multiplayer game, which I enjoyed immensely the first week (I got it 5 days pre-launch). Then the tards started rolling in, and as soon as you were on your way to winning a game, someone would quit. Or people would refuse to play as mercs, or...

    I just get tired of fucktards getting the way of my enjoyment, and therefore I'll probably always prefer nonline, so to speak. Which means Nintendo definitely have a market for their stuff. And I'm fairly sure MS will continue to push Live until they burst, but I reckon they'll never reach more than say, 10% of their installed base in the next generation.

    I'll agree that his example as to why online isn't profitable is a bit shoddy, though. Maybe he should have looked at Splinter Cell - I don't know if PT has gotten close to the original's figures?

  • westernmusic #33 8 years ago

    show me the door, I'll sleep on the floor

  • Tomster #34 8 years ago

    Uh, Horse, what exactly would you have to pay £30 a month for if you wanted to play on Xbox Live? Last time I checked the Starter Kit (which includes the first year of play) cost £39, after that it's again £39 per year (or something like £4 per month)... so not quite as bad, hey?

    True, DSL/cable isn't cheap but then again you can't really play online on a dial up connection (ever tried playing someone on a dial-up connection on PS2 Online? Let me tell you, its sucks big time!) and anyway it also gives you a fast internet connection.

    So, £39 plus £15*12... go work it out yourself ;)

  • CyberClaw #35 8 years ago

    The problem is that Nintendo is telling us, that we don't want online gaming. Which is stupid.
    Let me make an analogy. In the future Philips, came up with the concept of a holgraphic true 3d TV. Excelent for playing games. Now, big ball players, like lets say, Sony, would follow suit with their own models ASAP. If nintendo was in the TV business, they'd give interviews, issue statements, etc. saying that the public doesn't want holographic TV, there is no market for it yet, and that for now normal TV is just fine.

    In order for the market to grow, the product needs to be for sale. It's not like they sold all the color TVs in the first day. Many kept seeing shows in B&W. But that doesn't mean the dudes who made TVs wouldn't support color TV. Sooner or later, color tv would be the only thing available. But not nintendo. Nintendo would keep seeling their B&W tvs, and selling us acessories that lets us connect our tv controler to our fridge so that we can press a button and the fridge door would open, while the tv emits a sound more or less like "Honey, gimme some beer godamn it".

    It's just ridiculous. I don't know of any company who hopes to stay in business working like Nintendo is. They aren't trying to come up with new ideas, and when the new ideas appear (online) they don't follow suit, because the big guns in the firm want to push GBA connectivity a lil' bit more.

    I dunno what the real numbers are, but kids nowadays probably want a PS2. The GC, is usually a backup console, at least among the hardcore, and Nintendo isn't developing any loyalty among the youngsters with their GC lineup (well maybe the extremely young, like 4-5 yo, but older than that and they want a PS2). They probably are survivng based on their older audience loyalty, and even freaking loosing that race (the WindWaker sales, were really disapointing compared to the OoT). I dunno. Wonder why so many people say Nintendo will go 3rd party sooner or later? I mean, can they keep this rythm? People still buy their franchises based in their childwood love. Mario, Zelda, Metroid, they all sell enough. But they aren't sucessfully developing new franchises. And there is only so much you can sell Mario until it starts feeling old. In this gen they only developed Pikmin as a new project, which had a mild success. Will Mario 128 be as good/inovative as Mario 64? Or will it start feeling old, after the somewhat disapointing Mario Sunshine?
    Name one thing that Nintendo is trying to make new, which is truly inovative? None? Then name one thing that Nintendo is trying to push, which clearly indicates that they want to lead gaming into the future. None? Why? Because they don't like to take risks. The Nintendo we all saw taking huge risks and collecting even bigger profits back in the Nes day is long dead. Wanna know exactly when they died? When they stoped cooperating with Sony in their PSX project, and decided to develop their own console. PSX was a huge success, N64 was what we know, and now Sony is riding the success boat alone, while Nintendo sucks on it's finger thinking that they could be there at the top too, if they weren't such asses to every 3rd party they face (be them developers or partners).

  • Daryoon #36 8 years ago

    If 80% of gamers were playing online, I'd also think Nintendo were being stupid, but the number of online players compared to the installed user-base of consoles is tiny. Would it really be worth investing all the money needed into setting up the servers, as well as the development of online games, just to please an elitist 2% of console owners who think they know the 'future of gaming'?

    Do you really think the general population is going to be interested in playing online against strangers, a large number of whom are moronic teenagers? Do you really think they're going to find the idea of a game where you need to spend 7 hours a day playing, for three months, just to get to a level where it starts becoming fun?

    No. I think the general population would much rather have games they can play with their friends IN THEIR OWN HOME. A few mates round on a Friday night after the pub, that sort of thing. And that's even more true for kids - who make up the bulk of the market. Most would rather play their school-mates, and it's usually only the sad, lonely geeks who have no friends who spend their time online being retards.

    On a slightly related note:
    they want you to own 4 GBA so you can see your stats on the small screen

    They do? I always assumed Crystal Chronicles was aimed at teenagers who would have friends with GBAs, thus negating the need to go out and buy them. But this sort of complaint is common-place, and it always comes from the same people - the ones who are completely oblivious to core of the market and are convinced online games are the future...

  • valli #37 8 years ago

    Nintendo and Iwata are making one braindead comment after the other and it's amazing to see the Nintendo Sheep buying everything the big N says.

    Last month: "the games market doesn't need better hardware" (which translates to "we haven't bothered starting researching new hardware until now and we don't have jack shit in the pipeline for at least 3 years";)

    Now: "gamers don't want online games" (again, "we don't have any online plans whatsoever";)

    The fact that he builds his argument around a new game that requires a harddrive shows how stupid the whole thing sounds. Why not compare it with PGR2 or SOCOM?

    Broadband access is becoming as elementary as electricity in a household these days and once the killer games start popping up (read GT4, Halo2, Everquest) Nintendo's lamentation about the size of the online gaming will be even more ridiculous than it is today.

  • striker #38 8 years ago

    Guess I'm a sad lonely geek too! :D

    I must be weird for prefering racing against a human opponent instead of a machine, the sad lonely geek that I am...

  • CyberClaw #39 8 years ago

    Daryoon, I'll say the same shit once again. Once they invented color TV, not everyone bought one. But tv makers started developing their own color models, because in the future, the demand would be bigger and bigger.
    If there was only 1 color tv, it would never take off. 99% of people would still have B&W tvs, and shit would allways be the same. MS is setting servers, even if now it's only 2%, in the future it'll sure be more. Sony is also setting servers. Nintendo? Nah, they don't care.

    Like I said, to be evolution, the things must be available to consumers. If there is no online platform, there is no way to grow the online platform. When they get into it, it'll start small and grow. They'll learn, they'll expand their techniques. But nope, that's not Nintendo. Nintendo are cocky little bastards, who try to sell the same shitznit over and over, and try to tell their consumers, they don't really want to play online.

    Well, here is what I know from people I talk to. There are a few who play online. But everyone is interested in it. Up until now, I only met 3 suckers, who said online gaming didn't interest them, but that's probably because they can't play online yet. In the future the broadband infrastructures will expand. More and more people will want it. Yet, if there is no online consoles already, people will start adopting then - and check this, then, people will also start slightly interested, and then grow.

    MS and Sony are betting in the future. Nintendo is telling us we don't want the future. We want their next squel to their old 80 franchsie, which is now copled with fantastic GBA connection capabilities, and a bonus disk, containing the original game, which no doubt surpasses the recent atempt... They are clearly living in the past. They should be forbidden to call their next gen project revolution. They don't have the vision, guts, or honnor, to use such word.

    I mean, if there is one single person at the face of the earth, who didn't find the concept of SCPT appealing, he may rise, so that I shoot him here right now, and the humanity gene pool improves.

    There is a place to more and more in nowadays market. SP and MP, Offline and Online both havetheir place. Obviously, that we've been playing offline games for decades, so it's quite obvious there are many more unexplored multiplayer ideas. It's quite natural, the best ideas in the future might be related to online gaming. A Small example of online gaming genious, is SCPT. Or Savage. Or BattleField.Or even Ultima Online back in the day. This is the same as the first Wolfenstein, Mario and Tetris. I'm not saying everyone will like these games, I'm saying that if we want new stuff it's only natural we move to new ideas and technology. when 2d was nearly perfected, we moved to 3d. 3d is nearing perfection now. Online is the next big thing, from my point of view. I mean, we had SEGA who had twin 16 bit processors, which were fine tuned for sprites. And we had PSX, single 32 bit processor, which was fine tuned for a crude, 3d, which gave us such jewels such as a way more fluid Tomb Raider, Crash Bandicoot, Tekken... XBox Next will ship with XBox Live out of the box. PS3 will ship with online mode out of the box. Nintendo Evolution, will ship with GBDS connectivity abilities (if you buy the apropriate acessories, cables, and games for both the GBDS And console obviously).

    Am I mocking Nintendo? Only partially. They are able to mock themselves alone pretty fine. Oh, and remember, YOU don't want to play online. Nooooo. Let's play another Mario game (uhm... Mario Stealth infiltration) - which is almost a mock off of Kunio games (excelent series BTW, River City Ransom was the most popular by far, but the whole Kunio games were excelent).
    Edited by 1 at 05/07/04 @ 23:53

  • striker #40 8 years ago

    And Daryoon, if you consider the market to be mainly kids and moronic teenagers do you really believe they'd have problems playing together?

    And also, if you have no idead of what online gaming consists of:

    Do you really think they're going to find the idea of a game where you need to spend 7 hours a day playing, for three months, just to get to a level where it starts becoming fun?

    then don't even bother to comment. That's what I do whrn I know nothing about the subject.

    And finally, is it that different playing online with people you don't know and chatting online in a gaming website and in a general talk forum with people you don't know?
    Edited by 1 at 05/07/04 @ 23:59

  • Daryoon #41 8 years ago

    Wow, you didn't notice the over-exegeration! Well done, would you like a Blue Peter badger?

  • CyberClaw #42 8 years ago

    Daryoon, online is usually about competition. That means it's a dm game, or a ctf game, or a racing game. The same as you have in your home in split screen, but online you have the screen for yourself. Urrah!

    But wait, there is more, sometimes, online also incorporates cooperative, instead of competitive, and really good games, incoroporate both. Coop games, like RS3 are fun on their own with 4 online buds against the AI. And games like Battle Field, well, they are almos the best of the two worlds. You have a huge levels, as big as many SP FPS levels, and you have competitive multiplayer team combat.

    I'm still not sure Daryoon, are you making this crap up because you can't play online in your area, and are revolted, or are those really your convictions after Nintendo anti online propaganda brainwashed you?

    But intendo is funny man. Sony and MS try to market and sell us the future. Nintendo on the other hand, tell us we don't really want the future. Keep in mind, that XBox Live, is a good embassador on part of the XBox, even for those who can't access it yet. Sure, a couple of asses might be pissed because they can't play, and that makes them volcalise as anti-online, but that's like people who can't own a mercedes saying mercedes are crap. No one says Mercedes are crap just because they can't buy one.
    Yet, such vocalisation is quite common in online gaming comunities, dunno why. Many people protect the brand of the console they selected to buy, instead of vocalizing about what's right or messed up. Trying to protect their small investment or something. You know, that football fanatism, it translates to some gamers, dunno why.

  • Daryoon #43 8 years ago

    I'm still not sure Daryoon, are you making this crap up because you can't play online in your area, and are revolted, or are those really your convictions after Nintendo anti online propaganda brainwashed you?

    Or could it be that I'm simply not convinced online gaming will ever extend beyond the hardcore?
    I played online a little with UT 2k4, but didn't enjoy it. The main reason was because I was playing against strangers, and that holds no interest for me. Secondly, a great deal of these online games require time to play (esp. character building games) - you can't just pick up and play, because there will always be players who treat the game like life and death and spend all their waking hours perfecting their technique.

    Why then, would the average gamer want to go online? To get the crap beaten out of them by hardcore players? To get flamed and kicked out of games because they're not good enough, or they're only playing for a laugh? So far online games have done little to appeal to anyone outside of the geek crowd, who coincidently are the ones most likely to take games deadly seriously.

    A decade ago they said Virtual Reality was the future. It was a big 'in' thing, but one day it just vanished. Online gaming is now the 'in' thing, but unless it finds a way to appeal to the mass market, then it's going to remain purely geek territory.

    And when it comes down to it, games that involve people in the same room are just so much more, well...fun. Maybe you enjoy fragging strangers from another country, but the vast majority of people would rather play with their friends, who happen to be in the same room. It's a human thing.

  • Sid-Nice #44 8 years ago

    The PC is the best system for on-line gaming, yes the Xbox and Xbox Live does have some console titles that work well on-line. But the overall picture suggests PC for on-line gaming, console for multi-player and single player games in the living room.

    Out of 85 million consoles there's less than 2 million subscribers to Xbox Live and the PS2 equivalent, these figures include the free 2 months trial of Live. Satoru Iwata doesn't need to use the sales figures of Everybody's Golf On-line, to point out that on-line console gaming isn't as popular as some sources in the industry try to make out.

    The on-line capability is a good option in a console game. But if developers put too much effort into the on-line structure of a console game, leaving a mediocre single and multi-player game, then it's the majority who'll suffer.
    Edit Spelling:
    Edited by 1 at 06/07/04 @ 02:20

  • MikeD #45 8 years ago

    Daryoon

    I am definitely in the pro-online camp. But on the other hand I will only play with friends, as I find playing against only strangers completely boring. The same as you.

    Which shows it is completely possible and in fact a good addition to multiplayer on 1 screen. This way you can play with friends in 1 house or in different houses.

    I also don't find that gaming in one room is more fun, the gaming is less serious because drinking is usually involved. Yes fun, but not for a working day when you have to be up at 6.

  • CyberClaw #46 8 years ago

    Daryoon, Virtual Reality was expensive. A really good Virtual Reality helmet, was as expensive as a PC. But the hardware developers didn't say that THAT was the future. The guys who said it, was mainly sci fi writters, and a couple of nerds.
    We aren't talking about minorities here. MS and Sony, both have enough online clients, to show this isn't a minority. It's MS. It's Sony. It's SEGA. Did Sony ever got any weight into virtual reality? Nope. Why? Because it was just the gadget of that age, a fade which would soon be replaced.

    You say you played UT2k4 a couple of minutes, and didn't find it fun. Let me tell you this, if you don't look arround, you won't find a good group of friends to play with. The best option, and what smart people do, is to break in with their own buds. If you play with some friends of yours, that's already someone you know, and it makes the game funnier. They break you in easly, and you have a good fun. Let's do it like this, if you want to play XBox Live one of this days, you can come and play with me and my buds. No jerks crying noob at every guy who misses a shot. Sure, the competivity is hard, but that's part of the game. If you play a game to be the best, then you play for the wrong reasons. There is only 1 that is the best. Everyone else is a looser relative to him. You shouldn't play games to win, but to have a good time. I sugest you play a team game - because that way you break in easier into the game rules. The score isn't on your shoulders, but on your team's shoulders. Sure every guy counts, but they can carry you arround for a couple of rounds to tell you the inner workings of the game.

    I'm an online gaming evangelist... What a nerd :D

  • Nause #47 8 years ago

    lol the statement that because one online game failed that customers don't want online games is insane. That's like saying that because a football game failed to sell well that customers don't want football games. Nintendo are going to die a slow and painful death and this is simply proff of how horribily it is being managed in it's final years.

  • jumpdeveraux #48 8 years ago

    Sony & MS plaster their next console packaging with 'Includes Online Play' in 6 inch high dayglo letters, Nintendo's Revolution packaging says 'Includes free Golf game!'

    ... don't let the door hit your ass on the way out Iwata-san, people don't want that ... or do they?!?!

  • striker #49 8 years ago

    It doesn't even need to be a paid service! Along with expensive games consoles also get online fees?

    Xbox Live offers a service, but there could be an option to just use the devellopers own servers as in the PC world, thus negating the mentioned costs.

    Most PC games have online modes for free and are cheaper. If Nintendo or Sony don't want to get carried away in much online investment, just allowing the possibility of online play as a PC does should be enough.

  • striker #50 8 years ago

    And please people, take it easy!

    You don't play online? You don't like it? Fine

    But don't assume noone does.

    I don't play multiplayer with friends at home (no friends interested in gaming whatsoever) but I'm sure it can be great fun, I don't trash it just because I don't do it.
    Edited by 1 at 06/07/04 @ 01:33

  • IronGiant #51 8 years ago

    Bout time there was some lively debate here again, keep it going! ;)

    /wonders what BGiE would have to say.. nah who cares.

  • CyberClaw #52 8 years ago

    We pay to MS because they have dedicaded servers handling our games and stats. This means small devs, will be able to take avantage of online games, since they don't need to maintain the servers. Game which wouldn't have online mode in 100000 years, are now rooled out with online conponent, because the devs don't have to take care of the servers.

    Now, PC servers are different, since they only have a lobby and patch server usually, and the game, character, and stat server, is hosted by the player himself.
    In XBox Live, some games only make 1 xbox host the game itself, but it's still MS servers which keep track of downloadable content, stats, friends, etc.

  • Daryoon #53 8 years ago

    There needs to be a killer app for online gaming before it can become mainstream. And that game needs to be simple enough so that everyone can play it, and fair enough so that the playing field is level. People are going to be put off if they feel they need to invest time just to get a hang of the game.

    Look at traditional multiplayer games for example. What are the best ones? Simple games like EyeToy and BishiBashi, which you can master in a few goes. Everyone can play them - which is more than can be said for GoldenEye or Mario Kart, which only work well when all the players are on the same level of skill.

    Portable gaming had Tetris. What will be the game to kickstart online gaming? Perhaps, in the end, the most popular online games will end up being simple games like Noughts and Crosses...

  • CyberClaw #54 8 years ago

    Daryoon wtf are you talking about? Halo 1 is an excelent MP game. Way better than EyeToy, no matter whom you ask. There are plenty of onlien killer apps for all the tastes. It's exactly like offline multiplayer games, but you play people accross the world instead. I supose you don't like offline multiplayer either (other than eyetoy it seems).

    Get 4 xboxes, 4 halos, 4 tvs, 16 controlers, and 15 friends. You'll see what MP is all about. Halo 2 will be online. It'll be awsome, but there is already good online games right now. RS3, SC PT, Mech Assault, Moto GP2, PRoject Gotham Racing 2, those are my favs, but I'm pretty sure there's plenty of more, just for the XBox, let alone PS2, or PC.

    There is already the killer app my friend. What is Pandora Tommorrow? The game is as complicated as the SP game, and people bought it like there was no tommorrow. So, they already know what to expect from the MP game. Just this time, it's no pushover AI. It's another real human. There'll be loosers, there'll be winners. There is no way to go arround that. And that's the fun. They are humans. They devise new techniques. I mean, playing Blood Glutch against the AI, would start to feel old now, but against other real players, it's still one of the best MP experiences that comes to my mind.

  • Daryoon #55 8 years ago

    Yeah, I can just see the masses flocking to Halo...riiiiiight...

  • CyberClaw #56 8 years ago

    What? WTF? man you are deeply messed up. Halo is excelent, and, yes, I can see the masses flocking to halo (or halo 2). Ask anyone what does november 9 means to them. anyone who isn't nintendo only biased ;)
    the game is very good in sp, and it's excelent/nirvana in mp. It's the best sold title in the xbox, and I supose it sold way more copies than any GC title.

  • CyberClaw #57 8 years ago

    Dude now I understand you. You are talking about those guys, who don't want to play a game, but just do stuff in their free time. That's what you meant with eyetoy... Man, those aren't gamers, those don't count. Look at what games sell. It's games like Halo and Splinter Cell and GTA. Real games. with real rules behind them, not just a small gimmick that gets old past 5 minutes. If you are a eyetoy cam person, WTF are you doing here? We discuss real games here. Go download some E3 videos, and if you find them interesting, then get back here.

  • Daryoon #58 8 years ago

    Now you're just being a elistist snob.
    You say get 16 people round to play Halo? What will the ones who have never played a FPS do? What about those who aren't used to the Xbox controller?

    The learning curve for such a game is too steep. Unlike Tetris, you can pick it up in 5 minutes, and so you're limited the people you can play against to those who have put time into the game beforehand. Which goes right back to the arguments I made earlier.

    These people who "aren't gamers" make up the bulk of the market. You sound as if you want online gaming to remain a niche thing, populated by only those people who pour their life into the game.

    Everyone else? Hell, they just want to have fun! Obviously they're not allowed to.

    And okay, I'll look at games that sell...

    What's that? TETRIS?

    Woah shit!

  • CyberClaw #59 8 years ago

    Dude, Halo was a best seller. Is the learning curve to steep? Than all those people who bought it, didn't play it, because it was too hard.
    You treat people like retards.
    "You say get 16 people round to play Halo? What will the ones who have never played a FPS do?"
    Learn. People aren't born taught you know? People have to try it a first time. I must confess though, when I said gather 16 people to play Halo, I was referring to 16 people who liked to play Halo, not 16 people which gaming experience resumes to tetris.
    "What about those who aren't used to the Xbox controller?"
    Yes, you are right. When I said those 16 people, I also forgot to include, 16 people, with index and thumb fingers in both hands.

    So, the big bulk of sales is of people who play tetris and those easy to get into games right? Sorry for being so arsh but STFU. Check the top 10 sellers of last month. You won't find ONE single game with a pick up and play style of tetris.

    Games nowadays have evolved. They are more complicated, to keep themselves fresh. They have intricated mechanics and phisics, as well as rules, which is what makes or breaks the game nowadays. Halo has an excelent set of mechanics, phisics and rules, and that's why I find it the best of FPSs, ence why I also sugested it.

    You obviously, see gaming as eyetoy. Something that it's so braindead, that even my grandma could play.

    I dunno what kind of people you see as gamers. I dunno what kind of gamer you call yourself. But true gamers bought Halo. They bought GTA,l Splinter Cell, and many other games. And none of them were simple pick and play mechanics. How they got to the top charts? All by braindead people, who mistakenly took Halo for Tetris 2 (the title is similar, don't deny it).

    Look man, you are saying that a killer app is a game like Tetris? Nope man. Tetris wouldn't sell shit in nowadays systems. Quite in fact, Tetris Worlds, an Online version of Tetris for the XBox Live, didn't sell shit - and it must be the least played game in XBox Live. People want GAMES. People buy games. Halo, Splinter Cell, GTA? Yea, they have complicated mechanics and controls, but guess what, they are on the top of the charts, because people want games like those.

    What I am saying, is that people who want to play a game, want to do more, than just move the piece left or right in the screen (with the ocasional drop). They want more interactivity, more options, more fun. People want Halos. People buy Halos.

    "And okay, I'll look at games that sell...

    What's that? TETRIS? "
    Sorry, I must be alucinating. When was the last time Tetris was in the top chart? Actually, and I hate to break this into you, but Tetris was never a top charter. Sorry, you must be astounished that such a game was never a top charter. But it's true. The original GB tetris was offered with the GB. Part of it's success was that the game was free and the first game you got with your GB (everyone had tetris - but it wasn't bought by none it came free). GBA, doesn't have a Tetris version. Kinda sad actually, but I understand, because TETRIS DOESN'T SELL.
    Want to know the last charts on Eurogamer?

    http://www.eurogamer.net/article.php?article_id=55913 Driv3r is 1st
    Splinter Cell PT is 4th (way more complicated than Halo, and yet...)
    Full Spectrum Warrior is 6th (isn't THIS COMPLICATED ENOUGH FOR YOU? THIS GAME IS AN ADAPTATION OF THE ARMY SIMULATION - AND IT IS A TOP SELLER - PEOPLE MUST HAVE CONFUSED THE TITLE FOR BUBBLE BOOBLE 7)

    I could go on and on, but I'm pretty sure I Got my word across. Discussing with you, is like singing poetry to a watermelon. Futile. At least the watermelon won't make unfunded, reasonless, and otherwise stupid remarks. (Tetris is what sells. AHAHAHAH)

  • Daryoon #60 8 years ago

    Obviously you have no desire for games to evolve into a popular, accepted medium and would prefer for them to remain the domain of the stereotypical male geeks. Let's forget trying to embrace all types of players and people! We don't need them! We can hook 16 Xboxen up and play Halo instead!

  • CyberClaw #61 8 years ago

    Daryoon you represent everything I might ahte about big gaming enterprises right now. Congratiolations.

    Let me talk to you about gaming vision. I see gaming as a work of art. and interactive work of art. The idea, of toning down a game, to make it easier to be accepted among casual non gamers is an abomination to my mind. People either want to play games or not. Toning down a game, fucking us real gamers who want to play games, in a desperate try to convert new gamers, is something I will not accept. Nor any gamer with his balls in the place. No to censorship. No to toning down. No to bugs. That's all I have to say about my vision.

    About what you said, other mediums don't make their own art tonned down to accept new people. People either want to go see the LOTR or not. PERIOD. Godamn, I'd rip Peter Jackson's balls if he toned down the movie, and cahnged the story, so that people could go see it. Ey, maybe picking up the characters, and completly changing the story and references.

    No, I see games as art. I see cinema as art. People will come and play games in the future. Like cinema. Older people are hard to convert, because they already have their hobbies. Nowadays, who doesn't enjoy going to the movies? Gaming is growing. More and more people will grow into it. No need to tone down games. Sure, there will allways be gimmick games, which are oriented to newcommers. Eyetoy for example. But online isn't for new commers. LOTR isn't the first movie someone should see. To fully understand LOTR, and fully enjoy it as a cinematographic experience, you need to haev seen other simpler movies yet. So, when people are ready to play online, it's more or less given that they already like gaming, and do it as an habbit. People who play Eyetoy for 5 mins and then throw it away, are not suitable to play online. People who play Eyetoy, find it fun, move to Mario, then to Halo, and soon they are playing a turn based strategy game. Yea, those are suitable for online gaming, because they enjoy the gaming chalange, and they find the AI boring, and want to chalange real people. What's the fun of playig monopoly by yourself. What's the fun of playing monopoly against a computer. Now, playing against a human oponent, that's fun. But people who enter online gaming, and people who are ready for it, are already playing Halos, and GTAs, and Splinter Cells. People who play Eyetoy, and only Eyetoy, will never find online interesting. Like people who catch a film passing on tv sunday afternoon, and watch half of it... and it's french. To some people this is a stupid hobby, so they might only dedicate 5 mins of their life to it. They aren't suitable to play online. They aren't suitable to play games as a matter of fact, because they don't really enjoy it. People who want to play online really enjoy games. They don't play Eyetoy over and over. Eyetoy is a 5 min gimmick. They play Street Fighter. They play GTA. They play Final Fantasy.

    Toning down online games for better acceptance? Stupid - because people who want to play online, already embrace gaming. You granny who played eyetoy for 5 mints and found it interesting and then rushed upstairs to take a nap won't give a crap about playing online.

    My point is clear enough I believe.

  • Daryoon #62 8 years ago

    So what you're basically saying is...

    "ONLINE GAEMS R 4 TEH L337 SUPA PLAYRS OLY!"

    I feel like I'm talking to a Super Saiyan fusion of BGiE and gameFAQs...

  • CyberClaw #63 8 years ago

    Daryoon obviously, your cells are already asleep. All I'm saying is
    "Online gaming is for people who already have gaming as an hobby (which are many). Games like Eyetoy are not suitable for online play, because they are gimmick games, and multiplayer games, need to have good replayability - gimmick games are thin on replayability."
    I fell like I'm talking to the clone of a dog's thurd.

  • 3william56 #64 8 years ago

    Jeez guys - toys back in the pram... If you'd quit shouting at each other, you'd see that you *both* have valid points. There's no All Online, or No Online position worth yelling about.

    Some folks like online gaming; there is money to be made, and it will probably grow as broadband becomes more common. Hence, console companies would be fools not to have some online option, and some decent games for these folks. And this is where Iwata *is* wrong, though as online income is still relatively small, and the number of online focussed console players is small, it won't kill Ninty any time soon. It will send a bad message of restricted choices to folks buying a new console though.

    Some folks don't want, can't afford, don't like online at the mo. I'm one. Want involving single player games. For the moment, we're the majority. So the majority of games should be aimed at nonline gaming. This may change, might not. The Might of Democracy of the Wallet rules.

    Most important though, no-one wants compromised games - so devs should not compromise single player games for online /glares at Syphon Filter/ or vice versa just cos it Online's the New Black.

  • Blerk #65 8 years ago

    Wow! What happened in here after I left? :-)

    Despite all you guys flaming him, Daryoon makes some very good, very valid points. I don't see online console gaming ever taking off outside of a very vocal minority either. At least not within the next ten years. So there.

  • ssuellid #66 8 years ago

    IMHO, Daryoon is wrong about the need for a killer app before online gaming ever becomes mainstream. Its the lack of cheap widely available broadband that is the major problem. Its going to cost you around £20 a month in the UK for the broadband connection alone - if you can live in an area that can get a connection.

  • Blerk #67 8 years ago

    There's more than enough demand to make a little money out of it.

    See, I wonder if that's true. Anyone have any figures for how much money Microsoft is spending on Xbox Live and how much money they're actually making out of it? I suspect they're running at a very large loss.

    Anyway.... now you Online fans know how us JRPG have felt for years. There's a very vocal group of us who want the games released in Europe, but the companies say there's no market and refuse to release them. It's the same thing all over again.

  • TipTop #68 8 years ago

    But there isn't a market for JRPGs :)

  • ssuellid #69 8 years ago

    If Nintendo don't think that customers want online gaming then why did they bother to waste all that time and money developing a 56k and broadband adapter for the GC?

    At some point they must have thought that customers wanted online gaming.

  • marilena #70 8 years ago

    Ahem. I'm too late to the party, but I feel that some points haven't been adressed, so, in case anyone is still reading this I'll give you my opinion.

    First, Iwata is obviously talking bollocks. His company has been constantly promoting things with very limited apeal, like conectivity. Surely conectivity has much lower chances of taking off than online play.

    Second, a game doesn't need to sell bilions to prove it has a valid idea. If it makes profit, then it works. Sure, maybe online games do not make the bulk of the profit right now, but I can bet they are not losing money either. So, you invest in the future and you even make a small profit. What's wrong with that?

    And then it's just wrong for a company to state something will not work. They can make an analisis and decide it's not worth it, but coming out and saying it is pointless and risky, as people who disagree will feel alienated.

  • Machiavel #71 8 years ago

    Dude, Halo was a best seller. Is the learning curve to steep? Than all those people who bought it, didn't play it, because it was too hard.
    You treat people like retards.
    "You say get 16 people round to play Halo? What will the ones who have never played a FPS do?"
    Learn. People aren't born taught you know? People have to try it a first time. I must confess though, when I said gather 16 people to play Halo, I was referring to 16 people who liked to play Halo, not 16 people which gaming experience resumes to tetris.
    "What about those who aren't used to the Xbox controller?"
    Yes, you are right. When I said those 16 people, I also forgot to include, 16 people, with index and thumb fingers in both hands.

    So you've never introduced a non-hardcore mate to Halo and watched in horror as they pivot around staring at the floor, glue themselves to walls and barriers, perpetually hit jump instead of fire, have no sense of direction, etc.? The learning curve for a damn fine fps like Halo is immense without months of previous gamer activity. And if these folks make a monumental effort to learn the controls, hell they can be beaten "every single time" by one of us for months on end, or better yet, immature strangers on the internet who shout abuse when winning and quit when losing.

    Daryoon, you're right on the money.
    Edited by 2 at 06/07/04 @ 10:36

  • ssuellid #72 8 years ago

    kevf123, They may get £40 from those who renew their subscriptions via XBox Live, but new subscribers who buy the XBox Live pack at retail will be at most giving MS £20 - after retailer profit etc. If you take into account Advertising, infrastructure, start up costs etc I doubt very much that MS are making any money from XBox Live.

  • Destria #73 8 years ago

    Well, I'm another one who doesn't really care much for on-line play. Give me a rich and detailed game world with a fleshed-out story and decent gameplay and I'm a happy bunny.

  • marilena #74 8 years ago

    Yeah, but it's not about you liking or not liking it. It's about nobody liking it, wich is just not true.

  • ssuellid #75 8 years ago

    kevf123, first piss off with the delusional part. Secondly advertising costs a fortune. In the UK alone MS had deals and advertising set up with BT, NTL and the other cable firm whos name escapes me. In the states its deals and advertising with numerous cablecos and others. Using exceptionally over estimation lets say there are 1 million XBox live subscribers paying £40 each - thats £40 million in total - not a lot of money when its spread around all those countries.

  • CyberClaw #76 8 years ago

    Machiavel, when I said that, I was saying try to come up with a small LAN. Invite people who like to play games. I wasn't saying, invite your grandmother, and ask her to bring her xbox along, cause it's quite obvious she wouldn't.
    As forlearning Halo, me and my PALs, all gamers (never had played a dualstick FPS before - very different from Golden Eye which was our fix back then), learned to play Halo in 15-20 mins. The hardest to understand was the mechanic behind driving the warthog (you don't turn the wells, you just indicate the direction).
    My cousin, whom has a PS2, took abou 10 mins to get bashing covenent in coop. My ex gf, was never able to understand the concept of dualstick, ence either looks or walks. But this sets back to Mario, because she can't use run+direction+jump either.

    Anyway, when I said invite 15 people over to play Halo, I was expecting them to have picked up a DualShock, and a game that makes use of it. Yes, there is the novelty factor to it, and people will feel akward at first, but it's not that hard to break in. I find SC harder, because people used to Mario games, don't know what to expect. What? They "ear" my footsteps? Nonsense. SC is way harder because you need to focus on the set to take avantage of your abilities - be them the split jump or hiding in shadows. Which might sound oh so obvious to us, but not so obvious to newcomers - since many games have shadows and the enemy still sees you in them. So, Splinter Cell, along with the controls and mechanics, they also need to learn about the new rules of the game.

    As for FPS, on my N64 times, I had arround 10-15 visitors at my place, to play Golden Eye. Only 2 of them had a console, none of them had a N64. Yea, the first our is a bitch, and they keep the our sambing instead of plaing. But once the character starts reacting the way they want, then the skills and reflexes come in, and it becomes a very interesting game. Same with Halo. We all twirled arround ourselfs trying to understand some weird controler concept sometime in our lifes. We learned how to play tough. Don't assume everyone else is stupid, because if they really want, they'll learn easly too. My ex-gf couldn't care less, she didn't make an effort (and she didn't like to play handycap matches in fighting games - and I didn't like to play against her cause she was too easy). My cousin on the other hand, loved the concept of the game, and although she isn't a gamer, she insisted for half an hour, and in no time she was playing the game. Sure, she was still eons away from me, but that's mainly because I have 2 years of Halo and she has 20 mins. It didn't prevent us from having a blast.

  • Eighthours #77 8 years ago

    These arguments are all very amusing. Let me add my two cents:

    "I don't like online, because I prefer my friends to come round and play!" Offline and online multiplayer can be combined. Yes indeed! Guest play in PGR2, Top Spin, Crimson Skies, Rainbow Six: Black Arrow, and presumably Halo 2. Face your friends and people you've never met at the same time!! Which eliminates the "I like my friends to come round and play" argument against online gaming. Also if any of your friends play online anyway....er.....you can still play them!!!

    "Online gaming's too hardcore for casual players to pick up!" Er....that's what the Optimatch is for. Find someone to play with your own skill level. True, the option is only as good as the developers make it, but in the right hands it's a powerful tool to make you play games that you have a chance of winning.

    Plus let's look at the decline of split-screen gaming. It's not due to online, it's due to underpowered consoles. Stick on your average racing game, and start a 2 player game. Ouch......the framerate's just dropped in half. Where are the AI cars? Then start a 4-player game. Ohmygod, where have those nice graphics gone? It looks like an N64 game!!

    I don't know what planet Iwata's living on, but it's a long long way from reality.....

  • CyberClaw #78 8 years ago

    Xbox Live isn't a breeze. They have to:
    Set up machines and servers
    Have people maintaining them (PCs tend to have this problem which is crashing when non-atended)
    Make the free content - related to the 3rd party (in this year I was subscribed to XBox Live, I only downloaded free stuff, and I lost count of how many Mechs, Airplanes and maps I downloaded for free)
    -XBox Live updates (new features, like for e.g. the recent tsunami)

    Now, what Sony is doing, is creating the architecture, the servers themselves are hosted by the developers. Infortunally not every dev can set up a server, so small devs don't make PS2 online games. MS on the other hand, is creating the servers for every game in their system (we are sure that the servers will NEVER go down, not while we pay for them), managing a friend list (which is very usefull - and not as easy as you might think, since every game needs to comunicate with each other), creating the lobbies, helping the devs with new features they want for their games (MS as roundtable discussion with their devs, asking them what features they need in XBLive for their next games).
    They are working their money. 3 central server farms so far, 2 in the US, 1 in London. If you look at PS2 Online, it's still the same since it was launched. And back then it wasn't much. It's the difference betwen an half assed carefree free service which Sony provides, and a tight online experience MS provides.

  • CyberClaw #79 8 years ago

    kevf123, Sony has a joke online service. You know, like that collection of porn images hosted in Geocities, which are about a dosen. MS runs a premium mega porn site. Yes, you can get porn elsewhere, but you won't get it with this quality of service.

    On other words, MS's service is many million times better than Sony. That's how Sony makes it "free". Although personally, I would need to spend 150 Euros in merchandise for the PS2 (HDD, network adaptor, mic or keyboard), while for the Xbox Live, you just pay for the mic, and you get a way better service.

  • CyberClaw #80 8 years ago

    kevf123, it's functional, yes, but it's crap. Compared to XBox Live, the service is pure crap, in raw shape. Sony actually has a service as good as SEGA's DC online service - which if it's telling anything, is that they should try harder.

    Why do you pay for the Xbox Live service? Because it's not the free kind of crap you see from Sony. It's that "just barely functional and that's it" kind of service. Nope, XBox Live is an entity. It has it's updates, it's new features, etc. PS2 online service, is just that. A simple way to play online - if the devs can afford the lobby servers. XBox Live is a special online service. You are getting special treatment for your money. Not just another lobby server, but plenty of servers which keep track of your friends online, your scoreboards, downloadable content, etc. You pay for the quality. I prefer XBox Live the way it is now, than having to play in a PS2 online service, with no actual service standarts what-so-ever.

  • Dizzy #81 8 years ago

    In other news:

    'Customers do not want Nintendo'

  • Blerk #82 8 years ago

    I always presumed they were all losing money on their online services. Sometimes the long-term benefits outweigh the short-term costs. In this case, they offer everything at a loss to themselves to get as many people signed up to the service as possible. Then, when everyone's hooked on playing online, they ramp up the charges to astronomical levels and make a fortune.

    And if you think that won't happen then you're deluding yourselves. :-)

  • marilena #83 8 years ago

    Really? Battle.net is several years old now, and it's still free, although the services provided are significant (character storage on server, match making etc.) and high quality. Sure, it's not the same thing, but it shows you can make money from selling games and provide an extra service for free, if the games sell well.
    Edited by 1 at 06/07/04 @ 12:18

  • Blerk #84 8 years ago

    PC services are different - there are loads of 'em. If someone started charging you'd just switch to something else. Console users don't have a choice.

  • timo180 #85 8 years ago

    "Not even allowing Rainbow Six or Splinter Cell to be played online either was just criminal. The hardware exists, let people use it!!"

    That's where you would be very wrong, the option to put an online mode in Gamecube games is up to the developer, Nintendo didn't stop them, they just thought that nobody would use the online feature so they did not implement it.

  • timo180 #86 8 years ago

    "As a hardware manufacturer, we strongly support our third party partners in their online gaming efforts and have equipped our system to support online play. We hope to see some additional online games from our partners in the future. However, as a software manufacturer, we have decided not to release any online games at this time, as the online gaming audience remains relatively small. Although we feel that widespread online gaming is a couple years away, we would like to assure you that we will continue to assess the popularity of this feature on an on-going basis."

    Meh.

  • Blerk #87 8 years ago

    That only serves to push the cost down to the lowest level the market can stand.
    For the PC, yes. But not for the consoles - there's no choice, no competition. Why should they ever make it cheaper?

    Further proof if you need it that Microsoft are making a fortune from Live by monopolising it.
    I have no doubt at all that Microsoft WILL make a fortune from Live by monopolising it. Just 'not yet'. In the future, maybe.

    There must be some figures out there somewhere...?

  • CyberClaw #88 8 years ago

    timo, Nintendo didn't forbid it, but it didn't support it either. And that's the whole point right? Why should Ubisoft spend their money, time and ressources, developing and selling Nintendo's hardware? Nintendo doesn't give a fuck for the online adaptor, so why should Ubisoft, help the sells of the adaptor, since Nintendo is being such a prick and not giving any kind of hand or support to the 3rd party?
    Keep in mind developers might want to develop online portions of their games, but they don't want to battle uphill. Nintendo literally doesn't give any support at all with their problems. Did you know that Sony had a team located to Ubisoft, to help the port Splinter Cell to the PS2? That's 3rd party support. Kudos for Sony, the PS2 version looked mighty fine indeed. MS has plenty of 3rd party support. They constantly help developers with their problems, and they provide the best SDKs I ever had the chance to look at. Nintendo, doesn't give a fuck about 3rd party developers. They throw them a 20 year old C++ book to the head, and scream "You wanna make games to my console? You're not GOOD ENOUGH. PAY ME BITCHIN ROYALTIES, and unshit yourself. If you can do it, then alright I won't stop you. I won't help you along the way either. I'm too worried with currectly implementing connectivity in Mario 128"

  • jawolf #89 8 years ago

    Lets vote- Online Console Carefactor (using scale of 0-10)
    With 0 being "no care" and 10 being "I can't live with out it"

    My vote at present: 3 interest
    (But if they do it with something that isn't a first person shooter and has something of a team nature I'd consider)

    edit: got rid of "bog standard" before first person shooter.
    Edited by 1 at 06/07/04 @ 13:10

  • IronGiant #90 8 years ago

    Errr no you're wrong, the Sony service is basic, agree absolutely, but it is far from crap. What do you expect for free? I've had a hell of a lotta great online gaming with Sony and SOCOM/SOCOM2.

  • MikeD #91 8 years ago

    I think PES4 with xbox live (and the EA games of course) might increase the interest in online console gaming immensely.

  • CyberClaw #92 8 years ago

    I vote as a 9/10. Not essential, but I'd say it's as fun as any SP game will ever be - the difference is that instead of focusing in exploring new areas, it focus in developing new techniques against enemies who'll do likewise (humans) and usually means a bigger replay value than an SP experience. To make my point I still play Halo multiplayer.

    IronGiant, it could be way better. I've seen better free service, and I was expecting more from Sony. The biggest problem IMO, is the problems they raise with their different network structures in Europe. That's the sole reason RE Outbreak didn't support online mode in the PAL region. They could also make an effort to standartise their online titles, since that doesn't consume resources (In XBox Live, optimatch is optimatch in every game).
    I'm not asking for them to host the lobbies, that's the reason we pay MS, because that way small companies don't need to host their own servers (which many can't), and servers won't go down for any xbox live game (some DC games had it's servers shutting down because the devs couldn't afford it).
    Sony could make an effort and indeed make their offer more concise. It's free, yes, but for the same money invested from them, if they dedicated a little more time to planing, they could provide a better service.

  • CyberClaw #93 8 years ago

    GameSpy gametools is so optional. All it does, is provide yet other online means to hosting games - to games which usually already support gamespy for free anyway. Ence why it is so cheap. Unless you know it, GameSpy service, is almost the same either you use the free service or the paying service. Solely differs in less publicity, and more support. A few difs, here and there, like friends list support, and bla bla bla. Their service s maintained as free. They only host lobbies anyway. Gamespy service is mainly based on publicity. They are just making an extra buck from 2 or 3 people who want to sign for their premium services.

    XBox Live was invisioned as something which is premium from the start. You pay for alot of stuff. It doesn't live of advertising, and it hosts way more than GameSpy tools. Not to mention, you do get a free 2 month XBox Live ticket with every Live game, so no big deal (only prob is the name, stats and friends list - but if you really like those, you'll keep the subscription). I suppose I buy Xbox Live games every 2 months. I now have like 7 or 8 of those tickets.

  • ssuellid #94 8 years ago

    Back on planet Earth.

    Break even 100,000 customers? At the most £4 million quid? To set up and run servers across the world, provide support, negotiate local contracts with ISPs, write the software, contract/design the headset, etc etc.

    Sonys service is free because they don't do anything much apart from the central station thingy. Everything is left up to the developers. Sony have no infrastructure to pay for etc.

  • Blerk #95 8 years ago

    Lets vote- Online Console Carefactor (using scale of 0-10)

    0.

    Can I go into negative numbers?

  • gamingdave #96 8 years ago

    OK, for starters, if your going to bash Nintendo, read whats been said and digest it, dont just look at the articles title and jump straight into the comments section to say how much you love live and how Nintendo are dead.

    "Nintendo president Satoru Iwata has given an extensive talk on the state of the industry to the Japan Economic Foundation"

    So an extensive talk has been condensed into a few quotes.

    "According to highlights of his presentation which have been posted online, Iwata told the foundation that "most customers do not wish to pay the extra money for connection to the Internet, and for some customers, connection procedures to the Internet are still not easy.""

    So now were quoting highlights? In which he says MOST customers, a rather important word there I think, and one dropped from the title of the article giving it totaly differnet impact.

    If you think hes wrong then youre the one with your head in the sand, at the moment most console owners are not interested in online play. Thats not to say its something to toaly ignore, and say youll never be involved in, but just that its not the all important factor.

    My own experience of online play is very varied. Had some great times playing PSO on the DC but then some shocking ones aswell with thieves everywhere waiting to pouch your items, or idiots just spoiling things. ChuChu Rocket was a true delight, and the only time ive prefered the online multiplayer to the offline, I really liked the 2 second delay and think it added to the game by making you use different stratergies and think ahead. Then again I was involved in the beta trials as I was working at Sega developing dreamarena at the time and there was no one quitting when they were lossing, something that changed when it went live.

    I like some of the things that have been done with live, PGR2 being the obvious champion. Downloadable content is nice, as are league tables etc. But nearly everything thats in it (except the actual racing) was there in MSR on the DC, theyre was supposed to be up/downloadable ghosts but several issues saw this pulled late on. The time at Sega opened my eyes to the complexity of doing the online content and play, when you have a global consumer base.

    I do prefer playing multiplayer games in the house, where you can scream and shout or laugh at the other players and see theyre faces.

    Each to theyre own, im certainly not bashing online play or online gamers, but the simple fact is that online gaming is a very small part of the market at the moment. Thats whats Iwata has said and its true, so if your bashing Nintendo beacuse you misread (or didnt even bother to read) what hes said then your being a little foolish. Hes not said Nintendo wont be online in the future, just like they've never said that the next machine wont been technicaly supirior than the last, and on a par with ps3/xbox2.

    If he had gone to a conference and said most customers do want online gaming he would have been lying.

  • Daryoon #97 8 years ago

    I daren't comment any more because I'm not a True Gaming Warrior

  • Halo.Jones #98 8 years ago

    As for Capcom, they simply didn't convert RE Outbreak because Sony fucked up their European network (it works differently frmo the NTSC network apparently). That's why RE Outbreak doesn't have online mode in Europe.

    Wrong.

    Capcom fucked up as they decided to support different network stacks for each territory, for Japan they decided to go with a network stack whose name escapes me.

    For America, they went with Sega Snap's Network Stack.

    For Europe, they just didn't want to know even with all the help SCEE was trying to give them. Oh and they couldn't be arsed re-writing the network code.

    So who's fault it is it again?
    Edited by 1 at 06/07/04 @ 15:16

  • ssuellid #99 8 years ago

    kevf123, look in the mirror before you accuse people of not having a clue.

    You seem to think that MS just have a few servers plonked on the internet.

    Ever heard of 'Level 3' ? No I didn't think so.

    Do some research on what XBox Live is hosted on, how its been implemented, and then read your previous posts - spot who hasn't a clue?

    Nice of you to be so polite BTW.

  • Pike #100 8 years ago

    Heh! It's starting to become a bit of a gaming site tradition by now.

    1. Iwata makes a inflamatory statement about the imminent collapse of the gaming industry because Nintendo can't dictate the market conditions anymore.

    2. Nintendos fans and detractors get into a big fight over wheter Iwatas comments were stupid or not.

    This is repeatead about once or twice every month. I find it highly amusing.


    Edited by 1 at 06/07/04 @ 15:44

  • gamingdave #101 8 years ago

    Ahab. I agree that the quoted remark is daft, and its rubish game to use as a comparison. But then its a soundbite in an article thats quoting an internet source (uncredited) that had some highlights of a speech. Id like to read the full speech, im sure you could find some better examples. Id imagine he had more than one example, yet this is the one that anti-Nintendo people are quoting. Just like when they said that advances in hardware werent the most imprtant factor, and it was interpretated by some that it ment they wernt bothered about it, and the next machine would be no better than a cube in power.

    To me Nintendo dont need to prove themselves, im still having fun with there products and ill stop when the fun does. Though I do dispise their disgraceful lack of presance in Europe.

  • gamingdave #102 8 years ago

    kevf123, i agree with most of what your saying apart from ....

    "I'm just getting a bit tired of being told by Nintendo that the features and games I'd like to see aren't worth bothering with, but I think it's more Iwata's attitude."

    I dont think its Nintendos attitude at all, but people misquoting or misinterprating soundbites from lengthy speeches. Theres a lot of chinese whispers going on here.

  • ssuellid #103 8 years ago

    kevf123, its not a simple 'web hosting' agreement. Its effectively a dedicated private network. MS themselves have said that a sizeable amount of the $2bn XBox project was for XBox Live. You seem to think that the marketing, hardware and roll out costs, launch parties, press events, beta costs, don't exist or are negligible - I'd quite happily bet that they have nowhere near recouped the costs of XBox live.

    The hardware may be cheap but someone paid for it to be designed, tested, put through a marketing department, had the packaging designed, paid for press photos, focus groups etc etc. These things are not cheap even if the crappy headset at the end of it is.
    Edited by 1 at 06/07/04 @ 16:12

  • Tweakmonkey #104 8 years ago

    If Nintendo and Sony gave their BB adapter away for free then I would use it, however charging money for these accessories will always alienate the mass market and hold back any progress. If the new Nintendo console doesn't have built-in ethernet then I will be very disappointed with their attitude.

  • ssuellid #105 8 years ago

    I bet that they haven't even covered the press and marketing costs yet. £40 million does not go a long way.

  • ssuellid #106 8 years ago

    lol.

    I can see what you are saying. The running costs are not much and the income almost certainly covers this. But I still think that the initial start up costs were pretty huge.

    /waits for prize

  • Tweakmonkey #107 8 years ago

    Personally I like the free model of net gaming where you only have to buy the game and find servers to play on yourself. I don't really want to get into a subscription no matter how good the experience is. If console games could be hosted by the general public using PCs then I think this is the cheapest model for publishers to adopt. However it would take balls, and I doubt any of these control-freak console manufacturers would ever allow that...

  • CyberClaw #108 8 years ago

    MS is loosing money in each XBox sold. They are trying to hit down the loss with software. I'm pretty sure you are wrong, and that they are still loosing money with XBLive, but even if they aren't, the XBox project hasn't turned into profit just yet.
    The XBox 1, was a foot on the door. Best hardware, ethernet card included, best online service. They plan on starting the profit on XBox Next, or even later generations. They know that for now they need to invest, and that they'll only collect the fruits of their seeds in 5 or 6 years. But it's a foot on the door. They are analysing the topbox market. Sony as well. And believe it or not, online networks is the future. Everything will be connected. Look at what Sony is trying to do with the Cell, for example, where your TV, fridge and PS3 can have a cell processor in a shared processing network. Now, Sony is feeling the online water, seeing how things work, what they can or can't do,testing technologies, learning with it's mistakes. MS, likewise, is working and improvind on a service, that'll be available from the get go to their next console. What is Nintendo doing? Comparing Tennis games, and telling us online tennis games aren't popular - so they won't support it for now.

    When online gets popular, Nintendo will still be trying to figure out how to connect 56k modems. When CDs got popular (because they could carry way more data than a 32 meg cartidge), Nintendo stuburnly kept using their trusty old cartidges. Excelent loading times, crappy music, textures, and anything that could make the game shine. We got this amazing Zelda world, with bland featureless low res textures. What if they used a CD?
    Sure, they recovered from their mistakes and developed their own CD for their next generation console, but that generation was doomed to cartidges and games without textures, movies and a midi soundtrack.
    Have you ever wondered why MS and Sony are both supporting their consoles as DDV players? It'd come cheaper to them not to. Nintendo doesn't care for it. "It's a game console, it's a game console." But personally, I saved 100 Euros on buying a DVD player for my room, when I got my XBox.
    MS And Sony, both understand that having a multifunctional device is the future of consoles. They can't just play games, they also need to record movies, play DVDs, surf the internet, etc. Look at Sony's latest investment in the PS2. They called it PSX, and it's a PS2 with hard-drive, and alot of set top boxes features. Why is Sony even bothering trying to market such device (which will not meet high demand for now)? The reason is because they are already getting ready for PS3. They are studying the market. Seeing what people want, and waht people don't want. What works, and what's not a good idea.

    Same with online. When online starts rolling, when broadband starts getting cheaper and more available, Sony, and MS will already know how to do, and simply have to worry on expanding their servers. They're already used to the water temperature. Nintendo will try to jump late into the pool, and body splash the water...

    Here is my prediction. Nintendo's future online service will be as bad, as DC online or PS2 online. This isn't bad now, because companies are still learning with their mistakes. But when in the future they already know what to expect and what to do, it'll suck ass. Why is MS service way better than Sony? MS has a way greater experience with servers, networking, etc. You can see their experience in their product. I don't doubt, Sony will greatly inprove their online offering in the future too. They learn fast. They didn't even release the 56k adapter in the Europe, to stick to the best service, since they know, that they should be aiming for the future (where 56k will be lesser and lesser - and broadband more broad), not worrying about getting a full hand of guys, who won't enjoy the game anyway because of the unplayable lag.

    I just laugh at Nintendo. They are old and decaying. Sony and MS are dancing the new console dance. Nintendo is swinging to the old console tunes. I mean, I guess they realise that they are making mistakes in trying to do things their way. This year's E3, we didn't see any push on the GC-GBA connection abilities, which shows that they learned that it was a stupid idea - either because they listened to anyone with a mouth and a brain betwen their ears, or most likely, because it bunked at retail.

    I predict that they'll either soon change course to acomodate us costumers, or they'll become 3rd party. I have a little hope for them to get back on track, because they did learn that people wanted another OoT, not a cellshaded WindWaker (by the numbers, since OoT sold like 10 times more than the WW). But they might only think on the day of today, with their numbers.
    What I mean with this, is that they won't realise they should start investing in the online now, to have a good service in the future until is too late, and they once again will be left out in the cold.
    Edited by 1 at 06/07/04 @ 19:34

  • CyberClaw #109 8 years ago

    Tweakmonkey, the genious on Live's servers, is that there is no cheating what so ever. I'm a PC online gamer. Good games, get ruined fast by cheaters and hackers. To my mind comes Counter Strike, Diablo 2 in special. Both great games, over-ran by the hackers who made the game unplayable for others.
    XBox Live, has a tight grip on the consoles that connect. There is NO action replays, and no gamesharks for the Xbox, which means hacking it without a modchip is impossible. And the Xbox Live network, checks for a chip in your console, and bans you forever if it finds one.

    What we have here, is a cheating fre eenvironment. Sure, there will allways be assholes that drive the wrong way on the track, team killers, and droppers. But there are plenty of assholes in the world. Nothing that MS can do, short of stamping a number in their shaved forehead, and shoot their balls out in case they are naughty. But we do have an environment way better than PC or PS2 online, because the XBox Live is unhackable. With PCs, hacks would easly surface, chipped and hacked versions of the games would be easly ran on such servers, and non-cheaters would stop playing the game 1 month after release.

    PS2 online also has this problem for now, because they have action replays and gamesharks for sale, which change directly memory of the PS2. So, the server can allways cheat.

    Personally, that's why I only play XBox online right now. Yes, you can find droppers, you can find assholes who shouit and swear, but you know that in the game, all they can do, is drop and run to their momma.

    But if you want to play XBox online games without paying for a subscription, you can. You just need a PC, and a gateway software called XBConnect. Any game that works online, and any game which has system link ability can be played in XBConnect. There is only one problem. There are cheaters in there. Many cheaters. But it's free, so take your pick.

    I like to feel I have a somewhat leveled playing field. I pick XBox Live.

  • gamingdave #110 8 years ago

    haha CyberClaw, you really dont like Nintendo at all do you. How can you say that the music on N64 titles was "crappy". Whilst sony were slapping licensed trakcs on cds, Nintendo were creating original scores that react to the user and enviroment (mario64s tune fading in and out of a lulaby when you walk really slowly was blissfull). The arival of cd hailed the arival of shit games pumped full to the brim with shity unresponsive music and seeing budgets shift from developing games to developing FMV sequences. These days what happens, well ps2 games fill dvds, cube games are often less than a cd in size, you telling me all those ps2 games have better textures and sound? Its not about file size but the quality of the code.

    You talk of the future wonder box. The console/dvd player/hd recorder/dvdr/music player. Most people wont buy one, as the price will be massive, will it have the features I want, will it be upgradable? If its not upgradable then im not going to shell out £800+ for a new machine. I (andI thnk most people) would rather buy them seperatly, so each can be upgraded at its own pace. Thats the difference between a games console and a pc you know ;)

    With regards to getting your toe in the water you are right, but in an industry where staff move, and information can be bought, I doubt when Nintendo go into online play theyll really be that far behind, they can see what sony and microsoft are doing and what works. Whilst experience with the technology will be lacking, knowledge of its uses is there for everyone to see. Hire your self a team of network specialists and away you go.

    Nintendo arnt dying, theyre a profitable company with a large global presense. Its seems its much easier to bash them hiding behind misqouted soundbites these days than except that pretty much everything the craft oozes quality, I dont understand it myself.

  • CyberClaw #111 8 years ago

    Gaming Dave, yea, some midis were good, but you'll never see a "One Winged Angel" style of music in a N64 game. It is a FF7 musik, in case you didn't know. It is Sephiroth's theme, with vocals behind, singing in Latin. Amazong shivering music. Or you couldn't ear Leona singing in Final Fatnasy 8, with an amazing voice, or even, the ultra cool FMV intro, with the amazing chilling soundtrack behind.
    Want more examples? How about Metal Gear Solid. The game blowed me away. Every single line of dialogue was spoken. The game was pure genious back then.

    GamingDave, information can be bought, staff moves arround, but experience is something that'll allways be required. MS researched alot to make their XBox controler. But market experience taught them the xontroler could be better, and they released the controler S. The structure required internally to make an online service work, isn't just a mind set, the big guns need to get it in their mind they need to do it, and slowly tries what works best for their system. I'm not seeing a GameCube owner shelving out 80 euros for an HDD, but that works for Sony. I'm not seeing a GameCube owner shelving out 50 Euros every year to lpay online, but that works for MS. So, the information they can adquire, is their oponents strategy, and it's what works best for them. Nintendo needs to learn on their own, what's the best strategy. They can't copy MS or Sony's moves. They can't buy the experience and the user feedback specific to their case. That's why they'll be lagging behind the online console war.

  • Khab #112 8 years ago

    "most customers do not wish to pay the extra money for connection to the Internet, and for some customers, connection procedures to the Internet are still not easy."

    You know, his argument is really based on people not wanting to pay the extra dosh, and/or not having the technical proficiency to get their consoles online.

    Which I think is absolutely correct. Yes, there is *A* market for online, but it's not *THE* market, and it never will be.

    CyberClaw, your comparison to Colour TV is flawed, as a Colour TV has all the functionality of a B/W TV but with something more added to it. Online isn't like that - it will (I hope) never replace singleplayer, or even four-mates-on-the-couch-multiplayer.

    If Nintendo do not think that pursuing online for the time being, why are they putting their heads in the sand? Especially since Nintendo's games also have started to take on a younger age group, which will have even less possibility of influencing whether or not to get broadband, I think they may well be right, for now.

    This is a conscious decision from them, not just ignoring everything. Even Sony don't really bother with online - they know it's for the hardcore only. It's just that Microsoft stepped into the market and started screaming so loud about it that everyone wants to jump on the bandwagon, though it's not really ready to take off yet, economics-wise.

    Microsoft needed something to set them part from Sony when they broke into the market, Live! was it. It'll likely continue to grow, but very slowly, for each generation. But just because it serves MS's purpose doesn't mean it serves Ninty's or Sony's.

  • CyberClaw #113 8 years ago

    Another example on the musik N64 kuality, you are right, it's the coding that matters. But coding can only do so much in the N64, while the same ammount of coding can do way more in the PSX. Want an example? I once had a DOS strip poker game, which when it started, had a gril saying some rubish phrase through the PC speaker. Now, I had heard all kinds of fucked up atempts to get a person talking through a speaker. I must say, when I heard that sound effect by my speaker, I looked to check if my sound blaster system was turned off (it was during a night, so I didn't want it to make any noise). Props and kudos for the amazing acomplishment, really. But, just because they are able to get Virtua Racing running in the Mega Drive, doesn't mean the Saturn version isn't better. Metal Gear Solid had better textures than any N64 game. It's an example that came to my mind. Or Tekken 3. 2 examples right there.
    And although you don't seem to like FMVs, I must say that a good FMV, is a master piece that compliments the game. I'm referring to Square's FMVs. How many of you didn't let your jaw drop when we saw Sephiroth in the middle of the fire in Nibbleam, or when we saw the introductional fight betwen Squal and the white trenchcoat blonde dude, to the sound of Liberti Fatali?

  • CyberClaw #114 8 years ago

    Khab, Nintendo just realised that their games are bought more by adults. Otherwise how can you explain the darker more adult Zelda? OoT sold like 10 times what WW sold. Now, if you ask me, I see online as the split screen of the future. It has everything the split screen has, but it supports more players, and everyone has a full screen. I'm not saying they'll stop making split screen in their games. I'm saying, that the feature will be droped in favor of single screen multiplayer.

    2 examples come to my mind. RS3, and SC PT, both have online MP, and no split screen mode what so ever.

  • gamingdave #115 8 years ago

    haha from completely disagreing with you I agree with your last point a lot.

    Yeah some ps1 games did have excellent soundtracks, dialogue was very nice in MGS. But so many had poor soundtracks and FMV did get in the way. Mind I remeber the first time I heard a voice in a game, was round a mates house, called James, and we loaded up A View To A Kill on the speccy (or was it a c64) and it said (albeit in a very digitsed voice) "Welcome James". Fantastic. Sorry got sidetracked there. Streaming music can be used very well, GTA wouldnt be the same with midi music instead of the radio stations. But in a lot of games reaction to the player in music can add so much, and with the advances in sound cards theres no reason it cant all be done with programmed tracks, vocals can be recorded seperately and layered over the top.

    FMV definately has its place, the dream sequence near the start of Shenmue when you see the guy thats just killed your father doing some slow moves against a jet black backdrop was the last time my jaw was literaly on the floor from a game. I dropped my smoke, id dropped the pad and i hadnt realised. But thats not to say cartridge games didnt have good cut scenes.

    Your right aswell about companies as a whole needing to understand concepts and technologies, and not just a few tech heads in an off-site office. But I think the technology aspect is actualy the easiest part to buy in from elsewhere. The developing of the comunity online, and the features is the biggest challenge. I was involved in the development of the online content for MSR on the dc (amongst others and the dreamarena asa whole), stuff was pulled due to varied restrictions, money and time being the biggest factors. But there were some excellent features planned and the final result I thought was impressive for the time and the technology. There wernt many people at Sega who really understood the full workings of the networks, I certainly didnt, and they were managed along with the hosting (including PSO if I remeber rightly) by a 3rd party. I think the ideas are easy to work out especialy when you can see existing working systems in place. As you say live is a good service and will get better. Addition of buddy lists, integrating with msn messenger are all good steps and I look forward to what comes next. As I said though I rekon Nintendo wont fail on that side when they enter the online world fully. IMO they make the best interfaces hands down, SSBM is a prime example, so many possible options but you never get lost in it.

    Remember, Nintendo arnt exactly out of it. There is hardware available, to take it online, and it is usable. They experimented with getting MK:DD online but pulled it. Tunelling software is available to play it online, though I havnt myself got a BBA so havnt tried it. Id imagine they wernt happy with their own results and didnt want to release something they wernt happy about, good job too because imagine how flammed it would have been here if it wasnt perfect. They havnt said they wont be online in the future and Im sure they will be when they feel the time is right.

    --edit--

    youve added a few more posts since i started writting, this one was in response to the one about ps1 tunes.
    Edited by 1 at 06/07/04 @ 20:49

  • gamingdave #116 8 years ago

    Yes the ps had more space with a cd than a cartridge slot. And that allows for some good thing, but more often when storage space leaps coders just get lazy. As an internet developer I saw as more people got access to faster services, people started getting really lazy and sloppy in optimising things, and that sloppyness spreads to the overall coding practice as well as develpment and design, it adds bugs and restricts potential enhancement in the future. Anyway cd Vs cartridge isnt the point here.

    I dont think online single screen will replase split screen gaming. People who live with other gamers or have gaming friends who come over dont want to have to have 4 machines online do they, they want to be able to play round the tv laughing at each other having fun. I play poker online a lot but prefer a real game round a real table. It would be great if all multiplayer games worked splitscreen and online. Id propbably take advantage sometimes, but would always prefer the offline multiplayer experience (I have a projector so not having enough of the screen to yourself isnt an issue).

    On the subject of kidy games. Im an adult and enjoyed WW, I dont think its kidy. I dont think Pikmins kidy either. Why is it kidy, because its not dark/filled with blood/has massive tits? Is chess a kidy game? What about cards, monopoly?
    Edited by 2 at 06/07/04 @ 21:16

  • CyberClaw #117 8 years ago

    yes gaming dave, but as gamers get older, it gets harder to get 3 friends arround a tv, and some games, like for e.g. Halo MP, start getting really great with about 8 or more people in team games. A good example is BattleField 1942. The game is amazingly good, and it would be literally impossible without online. I mean, how many times can you gather 64 machines in a LAN party?
    I guess games will start getting bigger and bigger. Small comando battles will become huge wars with facing armies.

  • CyberClaw #118 8 years ago

    EDIT: You deleted your post, leaving me talking with ghosts to the eye of other people ^_~;; no biggie :p
    gamingdave, I dunno why you cannot understand the concept of kiddy. Chess isn't kiddy. It's to strategic and complicated. And I like the WindWaker too, although I prefered the OoT 5 to 1. I actually only finished the WW once, while I've finished the OoT 6 times, 2 in the GC. Anyhow, Zelda the WW had a kiddy visual, which means it's a colorfull game, with disproportional heads and limbs, which focus on catoon side. As contrast, the new Zelda, focus on more realistic tones, with more realistic character proportions, and seems to focus in a more serious story.
    That's the difference. You know Mario is a kiddy game. The story is allways light hearted. This new Zelda was described as a darker Zelda. Hardly kiddy.

    Hope you know understand what kiddy is (/satire)
    Edited by 1 at 06/07/04 @ 21:18

  • gamingdave #119 8 years ago

    yeah, agree, and I think in the future Nintendo will, but at the moment it really isnt big, thats what they are saying, its true. Id love to play MK online in a massive tornument with scheduled races. I do play online and will play more, but its rare at the moment. Add to that theres not many games that will work well with 64+ players. There can only be so many mmpog out there, as theres only so many players who will have that dedication to play these team bassed games at organised times. I expect there will be more people wanting quick online games they can jump into than ones that they invest a lot of time in.

  • gamingdave #120 8 years ago

    /removes humor chip

    yeah I see what your saying, if thats the definition of kidy then fine. But its far to often to describe games in a way so that people thing the actual game is only for kids, and thats wrong. The characters in the Simpsons are drawn with a kidy style, but the show isnt just for children. Its hard to discuss your interpritations in an online thread, would be much easier over a pint in the pub.

    Yes the story in Mario games is light harted (and predictable) there also always fun. Im more concerned about the play of a game. Yes mood has to be right, RE set in the mushroom kingdom wouldnt be the same (well it would be Luigis Mansion I suppose). Mario games are fun, the puzzles can be complex and I wouldnt say the gameplay was tailered to kids, its a chalenge for everyone.

  • Nause #121 8 years ago

    What I see as the future is single and multiplayer co-existing together, you know you can have your fully developed story and fleshed out character development and you can have you head to head battling provided by the multiplayer for those who want it. For someone to say, NO one may have online games is wrong because there is clearly a market for it ala, Xbox live or the masses of people playing cs and ut 2004 online. For someone to denie it's obivious appeal is madness and must be bad for bussiness.