Iwata: We "do not want online games" Comments by Kristan Reed
Still isn't important, says boss.
Want to comment on this article? Log in, or register!
Poster
|
0
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. |
|
0
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... |
|
0
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. |
|
0
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. |
|
0
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.
|
|
0
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! |
|
0
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) |
|
0
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. |
|
0
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
06/07/04 @ 06:42
0
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. |
|
0
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.
|
|
0
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. |
|
0
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. |
|
0
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 2 times,
most recently on 06/07/04 @ 10:36
|
|
0
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.
|
|
0
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.
|
|
0
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
06/07/04 @ 10:28
0
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..... |
|
0
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. |
|
0
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. |
|
0
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. |
|
0
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. :-) |
|
0
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 1 times,
most recently on 06/07/04 @ 12:18
|
|
0
"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. |
|
0
"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. |
|
0
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...? |
|
0
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" |
|
0
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 1 times,
most recently on 06/07/04 @ 13:10
|
|
0
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. |
|
0
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. |
|
0
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. |
|
gamingdave
06/07/04 @ 13:34
0
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. |
|
Halo Jones
06/07/04 @ 14:15
0
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 1 times,
most recently on 06/07/04 @ 15:16
|
|
0
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. |
|
0
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 1 times,
most recently on 06/07/04 @ 15:44
|
Want to comment on this article? Log in, or register!
Advertisement
