Advertisement
Nintendo brass on DS, online gaming News
DS News by Tom Bramwell
We've already fished Nintendo president Satoru Iwata and former boss man Hiroshi Yamauchi's damaging N5 comments from Japanese newspaper Nikkei Industrial Daily, but the dual-screen duo had more to say than that. The article also revealed how much significance Yamauchi places upon the enigmatic Nintendo DS handheld, and a statement of Nintendo's current position with regard to online gaming.
Interestingly, it was apparently Hiroshi Yamauchi who first floated the idea of a dual-screen device around 18 months ago. Satoru Iwata said the venerable ex-president had discerned a trend amongst consumers, and handed the idea to Nintendo management. Judging by Yamauchi's comments, he feels DS is key to Nintendo's strategy over the next two years. "If we are unsuccessful with the Nintendo DS, we may not go bankrupt, but we will be crushed. The next two years will be a really crucial time for Nintendo," he said, adding that he hopes the DS will re-energise the Japanese games market with new gameplay ideas.
Meanwhile Satoru Iwata gave his reaction to the current breed of online gaming services, including PS2 Online and Xbox Live. "I don't think the current online games have adopted the right business model, and people will not pay money for them," he said, arguing once again that the subscription-based model is untenable. However he did state that Nintendo is not ignoring the potential of network technology. "For example, we may think about using the wireless communications to enhance the enjoyment of a videogame," he said. As with much of Nintendo's output though, it's all tied in to the games as the platform holder remains stubbornly unwilling to change its outspoken philosophy of 'ideas first, tech where necessary'.
It's obviously worth pointing out that none of the above should be taken as gospel - after all, Nintendo issued a full-blown rebuttal when other views from the interview were first aired - but as ever Hiroshi Yamauchi proves good value for money, and current president Satoru Iwata is clearly making solid progress picking up the outspoken quirks of the role...
Advertisement
Want to comment on this article? Log in, or register!
Poster
|
0
"If we are unsuccessful with the Nintendo DS, we may not go bankrupt, but we will be crushed."
In fairness, seeing as he's claiming it as his idea, it's more like, "I'll be crushed if it doesn't do well." Or am I being overly cynical there. Probably am. Am I the only one that thinks that N have got it right when it comes to online? Please tell me I'm not. Pleeeease. |
|
0
The future is all in massive multiplayer games, mark my words.
(Btw I am a game designer for a large company) You have my sympathies for your imminent unemployment, then. MMO games will never be 'the norm' 'cos only a very small percentage of players actually have that necessary amount of free time to put into such games. There's room for about half a dozen top-class MMO games in the market, and that's it. The rest are doomed to failure if only because the type of people who play can only play one or two games at a time. And given the small number of fans this will be crippling for the industry quite quickly. Nintendo haven't quite got their stance right - they should be offering at least some basic online options for the people who care. But they're certainly right that most people will not pay a monthly subscription fee for something that they've already bought. |
|
0
Perhaps the next gen will see MS and Sony really trying to push downloadable content while Nintendo will stay with actually selling games in the traditional physical sense with discs/cartridges.. i could see that working for Nintendo, im not overly keen with the pay per month model, i like to buy a game and actually own it.
|
|
0
Nothing will ever change wanting single player games; some types of games such as those the marios of this world, or games that are story led, such as some RPGs, just can't be done in multiplayer world. Some games, such as Half-Life, have a great multiplayer component, but the experience of playing it through in single player is very enjoyable.
However, for sports games, multiplayer is the only way forward. Why have to complain each generation as the AI slowly improves with each consoles increased processing power, when you can play against another human who has its own personality and style in playing the game. It's not a fad, but it's not the only thing in the gaming world. tbh the way EA are doing online gaming with the PS2 is how I like it. |
|
0
"Anyone paying $15 a month on a regular basis is a better customer then one that MIGHT pay a full-price game once.
The future is all in massive multiplayer games, mark my words. " The future will be decided by the public with their wallets.. as far as im concerned software companies can stick games which are paid for on a continual monthly basis right up their backsides. |
|
0
Good point, Celeborn - sports are one area where multiplayer will work very nicely. But by their nature, sports aren't 'massively multiplayer', which is what the other guy was on about. I can see online stuff working, and I can see it working well. What I can't see is a future where every single game in online and there's no single-player option. That's just 'stupid talk'.
|
|
0
This thread is the videogames industry in a nutshell - the games designer working for a major company says "online is the future", the hardcore gamers saying "well there's always going to be room for single player", the more casual gamers amongst us saying "online? fuck off!"
Thing is, take a thousand people, a hundred or so might be casual gamers, you'll be lucky to find a dozen who are genuinely hardcore, and maybe you've got an upper arm or a shoulder somewhere that's a games designer. As a casual gamer I feel that I speak with authority on this subject. Your average punter is *not* interested in playing against strangers! ;p |
|
0
What otto said.
Online gaming has got a long way to go before it truly becomes mainstream. You've got to remember it's the masses - the general casual gaming public - that Iwata is talking about. All those people who have a console as an occasional hobby for when there's nothing on TV or as an aprés-pub pastime. Gaming is a social experience for many people, but my perception of social gaming is very much getting a load of mates round for a few drinks and a Mario Kart tournament, Timesplitters 2 deathmatch or Soul Calibur II fight... it isn't me sitting on my own with a headset on trading insults with some cheating teenagers on the other side of the Atlantic. And paying extra monthly installments for the priviledge. If it were free I might have a dabble, and I might get hooked... but (due mainly to marital obligations imposed by a non-gaming wife) my gaming time is at a premium anyway, so setting up a monthly sub would just be a waste of money. |
|
0
Future online games will not be like the games we have today. Since most people will be online all the time anyway (unless broadband providers fuck up), all games will include some sort of online features. It is inevitable. You guys have to think a bit outside what is available today. It is like the move from 2D to 3D. In the beginning it took a lot of imagination to picture all those 2D games moving to 3D but now it looks very "normal". Consoles will be like a TV... when you turn it on, it will connect to the worlwide gaming network and download new levels, new players etc. Changes are that those mushrooms you are shooting in Metroid 2010 will be controlled by players. You probably won't even know what is AI and what is HI. The basis for all this is being prepared right now (Live is a good beginning) but it will take next generation consoles to take this further and probably next gen after that to truely make it happen. If N does not go online with the N5 they can kiss their ass goodbye. (of course they might bring the GBA into this online always-on world if they are smart)
Edited 1 times,
most recently on 16/02/04 @ 14:08
|
|
0
Agree with Otto too. Despite loving several online games (Battlefield 1942 for one) I simply can't see the point in games companies and console manufacturers shoving some pretty pathetic "online content" into games just to try and swell people's already pathetically weedy egos. Who cares if you're the best in the world at a particular online game? Will you win any medals or awards for it? Probably not. But hey, your mum loves you, right?
Peej |
|
0
>Sounds awful, Dizzy. If gaming ever turns out like that then I guess I'll be stuck with my 'retro' stuff.
Why? Will it make your game worse if those sneaky aliens in Defender are controlled by humans? I agree that the voice thing can spoil the fun but that is because current online games usually are based on FPS/racing formulas that bring out the competitive aspect. Why wouldn't we have games in the future where online gaming is less intrusive? Developers have hardly scratched the surface of true online gaming because they have not had a real online global always-on network (no PC online gaming doesn't count.. it is way to anarchist to be of use for this). Hmmm.. maybe I should copyright this: Non-Intrusive Online gaming (tm) ;) To be quite honest I have done some work in this direction and it truely has potential. If you look at single player games today and you bring in online gaming without modifying the games formula (something no publishers have done yet) there is a lot of new stuff waiting around the horizon. Especially a game like GTA could set the trend here. The basic design of the GTA series has enormous online potential. Another cool example would be that Pacman Vs thing. Why not online? No in your face online shooting fest... just AI replaced by humans.
Edited 1 times,
most recently on 16/02/04 @ 14:31
|
|
0
Why? Will it make your game worse if those sneaky aliens in Defender are controlled by humans?
Well, if that's what you want then obviously it won't make it worse. But I don't actually like playing against other people very much - they cheat, and they're bad losers. And to take your Defender example of a game that just wouldn't work as a multiplayer experience - who the hell would want to play as one of those sneaky aliens? They have an expected life-span of about fifteen seconds. :-) Like I said, there are certain game types where multiplayer could be great. But for many genres there's just no added value in it. |
|
0
Yeah they're great ideas dizzy but i cant ever see enough gamers playing a single game that long to sustain it. Gaming is a hobby for the majority of people, a couple of hours when they have chance.. not sitting in front of a continually connected box. With GTA using real people as the citizens how would it work if you only had an hour a week to play it against others that play it for days on end. I like online play but most of the time i want a scripted challenge in my games, games like BG&E or PoP.. that way the more i play the more i learn and work round the challenges presented.
Online games quickly becomes elitist in that the people that play the most more often than not become the most proficient so when someone new joins in they get shot to pieces or end up in last place.. thats without the inevitable cheating.
Edited 1 times,
most recently on 16/02/04 @ 14:49
|
|
Tiger_Walts
16/02/04 @ 14:44
0
malloc: In fairness, seeing as he's claiming it as his idea, it's more like, "I'll be crushed if it doesn't do well." Or am I being overly cynical there. Probably am.
When the Virtual Boy failed, IIRC the guy in charge of the project ended up being delegated tedious dogsbody and PR work, it was either that or find a new job. |
|
0
>they cheat, and they're bad losers
Yes.. true.. obviously this is something that developers need to tackle. >They have an expected life-span of about fifteen seconds. :-) Also true ;) Maybe not the best example... although you could switch into another alien very quickly for example. I am not claiming any games right now have done it, but there is a huge scope for online gaming that is not of the "you vs me" variety. You could even link totally different kind of games together transparantly (or even with different time cycles). GTA city you are playing is being managed by a Sim City player? That forest you are walking through in your RPG is actually a site for a big RTS battle? And we haven't even mentioned linking to REAL world data. |
|
0
you can add me to the "dont give a toss about online" list. here & there i occassionally fancy the idea of online gaming, but i really can't be arsed to do anything about it.
with the exception of elite and the sports/fighting genres, just about all the games that i have particularly loved have involved a strong storyline that placed me at the centre of the events happening in the gaming world/universe, examples that spring to mind include ff7, zelda:ww, ico and wing commander prophecy. to put those in a multiplayer game then you'd have people with crappy amounts of bugger all to do whilst i stomped through wiping them out being the hero unit that i have to be at the centre of the plot. this would be no fun for whoever was designated to be random low level enemy #3, so why would they want to play. and what if he decided to just run away from me but i couldn't progress in the story til i'd killed all the monster in that area or something? having online options is great. its there for those who want it, and doesn't stop others from enjoying the game. having some online only games, again fine. but i wouldn't be buying a console that had to be online to play anything as its not what i want from my gaming. |
|
0
But it's a game, part of the excitement of gaming surely is playing in a fantasy world, i dont want real world data at all.. all these online ideas are great on paper but go tits up when you realise that there are plenty or arse'oles out there that think there's nothing funnier than trying to ruin other people's games. I see no appeal whatsoever in GTA fused with Sim City.
|
|
0
The straightforward single-player game is a classic formula along the lines of a good book or a satisfying fart. Having someone looking over your shoulder detracts from the enjoyment. Some things are just meant to be enjoyed on your own.
To take the analogy further, you can improve the AI/graphics/plot complexity/font size/fruity odour, but you can't mess with the basic recipe which makes the experience what it is.
Edited 1 times,
most recently on 16/02/04 @ 15:09
|
|
0
You pay a monthly charge for you TV no? What about Live?
Anyway.. who knows how this will work in the future. Micropayments? Maybe free gaming but pay for service? Maybe ad sponsored games? >good book Yes and no... games are inherently much more interactive (hence they are called games). So you enjoy playing ping pong on your own? Footy maybe? What if you could play all your fancy "single player" games without noticing they had online "features"? Anyway.. I am not going to drone on and on and on and on about this ;) Point was that there is a lot that can be done with online gaming that we haven't even experienced yet and for N to ignore that is a bit silly IMHO. /signs off
Edited 1 times,
most recently on 16/02/04 @ 15:15
|
|
0
Thats just it though, companies want us to pay monthly, they want that regular revenue stream.. they don't like the fact that we can wait till a game gets heavily price discounted or pick em up second hand on Ebay.. they want us to pay each time we play. I say bollox, like Blerk i will never pay monthly for a game.
Yes i pay for TV but for thats part of the point, i also pay for the internet, phone and god knows what else.. how much more disposable income are we supposed to have? When i pay for the TV i know exactly what im getting, my enjoyment is not influenced by anyone else or potentially ruined by anyone else.
Edited 1 times,
most recently on 16/02/04 @ 15:16
|
|
0
You pay a monthly charge for you TV no? What about Live?
I pay a monthly charge for my TV but that's the whole thing - I don't pay individually for each programme. LIVE! I don't have 'cos I don't have an Xbox or broadband. But if I did have both those things I still wouldn't get LIVE! 'cos I just wouldn't use it. It just doesn't appeal. |
|
0
I think a lot of people are talking past each other on this issue. Fact is, people want different things from games. Personally, I hate sports and I'm not into competitive games at all, I'd get no enjoyment at all from going up against other people, I don't even play multiplayer games at home with friends, let alone online with strangers. Nothing's going to change that. For me (and I suspect lots of other people) videogames are actually much more like books, they're a way of exercising the imagination and giving your brain a workout. Of course, they can do both, and most people probably like a balance between them. While those who enjoy competitive gaming could get something out of online games, for the second type of game I can't see any reason to go online. And even for competitive types, surely they're going to prefer to play against friends and people they know?
|
|
0
For me (and I suspect lots of other people) videogames are actually much more like books, they're a way of exercising the imagination and giving your brain a workout
otto's hit the nail on the head there. For me, games have to be story-driven - if there isn't a strong story and narrative then I'm not interested. Online games by their very nature can't do that kind of stuff. You can have missions and mini-stories, but you can't do an 'all encompassing progressive storyline' so it all comes down to 'levelling up' competitions with no real progression and no real ending. And that's why there will always be single-player games. |
|
0
I've said this for a lone time, I would not pay £5 per month for Xbox Live or any other extra service. The subscription is a yearly contract, what if no game you purchase is online compatible over the annual period you've subscribed for.
Put the extra charge for online gaming on the actual games themselves, an extra £5 should cover the cost, new levels, maps etc, can be downloaded, once you've registered your game. If for instance you bought the offline version of the game, then simply pay the £5 charge to enable the online service. Simple isn't it. |
|
0
>For me, games have to be story-driven - if there isn't a strong story and narrative then I'm not interested. Online games by their very nature can't do that kind of stuff. You can have missions and mini-stories, but you can't do an 'all encompassing progressive storyline' so it all comes down to 'levelling up' competitions with no real progression and no real ending.
Ok.. last post. Image this: You are playing your favourite FFXV games and so am I. During on of our quests the game decides that instead of a random monster battle, it might be cool if we face off against each other (just to make things a bit competitive....). You appear in my FF world and I appear in yours (and we are in different locations). "Cool", I say, "... that fighter dude looks dangerous.". "Hmmm... that wizard looks pretty well equiped", you say. Do you know it is another player? No! Do you really care? Maybe... but it is not necessary. Battle ensues and you win. I get resurrected by the game, but never meet the mysterious fighter again. The experience has left us both a bit shocked but satisfied. I will never know my arch-nemesis was Blerk ;) But the scary thing is... the game knows... maybe it will offer a rematch later in the game. Maybe even changing your appearance so you match a quest end-of-level nasty I need to fight. Interested? |
|
0
The main problem with the online gaming fraternity is that for every good egg you find who will play a game online and play with sportsmanship and fairness, there are about 1 million retards who will play online games with all the fairness and sportsmanship of someone who places bricks under hats on pavements and attaches the label "kick me hard"...
Peej |
|
0
>If I don't know you're another 'real' player then what's the difference between fighting you and fighting an AI character?
That is the point I am making. You can bet I gave you a much more interesting fight ;) Maybe I dropped an item only other players can find? Maybe even an item I created myself.... By introducing this kind of non-intrusive online features in games (of course this can only be done with technology that isn't here yet.. but will be soon) we can actually make the games better and more interesting. We do not even have to play together at the same time. The online game could just take data from my game and merge it with other games (like for example items my wizard character created. "You find the rod of Dizzy" ;) ;) ). The online games we have now are the pongs of the online games. In 10 years time we will laugh at some of the online things we play now. The online games actually haven't really evolved a lot since DooM (yet). Designers need a Live-like infrastucture before they can implement new gameplay features. The strange thing is that Nintendo already has done some amazing work in this direction but they fail to see what is sitting under their nose. Animal Crossing for example would a be brilliant game to adapt to this kind of non-competitive online world.
Edited 1 times,
most recently on 16/02/04 @ 16:21
|
|
0
Of course, you could just check out the latest Penny Arcade comic. Strangely reminiscent of this thread...!
Peej
Edited 1 times,
most recently on 16/02/04 @ 16:23
|
|
0
No it doesn't make the game more interesting or exciting, you're assuming that others would be even remotely interested in finding the rod of Dizzy, that just sounds wrong in so many ways ;) You may well provide a much more interesting fight but you could also ruin his game by beating the shite out of him because your character is so much more advanced or because you've played the game a hell of a lot more. At least with an offline game he can revisit that battle and try a different tactic or approach the next time, improving his skill each time. Your vision of online games still doesn't address the fact that by having worlds populated by real players opens it up to cheating and people who are just out to ruin it for everyone else.
|
Want to comment on this article? Log in, or register!
