Iwata: We "do not want online games" Comments by Kristan Reed

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.

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

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

Peej

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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

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.

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.

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")

This Iwata geezer is a complete idiot ! lol.

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

"Who's Dave Gosen?" - Iwata, probably.

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???

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.

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.

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

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.

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! :)

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.

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...)

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.

/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.

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.

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.

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.

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...

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...)

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...

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?

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

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 ;)

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).

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...

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.

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...

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).

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?

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

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.

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.

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:

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.

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

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.

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?!?!

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.

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.