Printable View
I'm reading a lot of poop about the GBA & GC connectivity. Granted, I'm not a fan of 'unlocking secret stuff' just because you're a person who's fortunate to afford the 2 systems. There are, however, great things that can, and have, been done with the systems merging.
What was done with Zelda was cool. What could be done with sports titles could be cool (keeping play secret from player 2)
Any thoughts?
Animal crossing had the best conectivity I've seen so far, I barely used Zeldas though... CC is my biggest hope for the future right now... could be badass...
I can't wait for the remade Super Mario Bros 1 for Gamecube with Luigi, Toad, and Peach as players 2-4 on linked up GBA's as they fuck me in the ass for being an idiot and buying three GBA's just to play goddamn Mario 1.
It sucks. Though Pacman would be cool if I had friends that gave a shit.
Sucks.
although it's been pretty gimmicky lately (unlocking games, or modes in the game). they're finally starting to use it to expand gameplay, and in a good way no less.
i like.
I like it, it's being used in meaningful ways now.
It's lame. It still is a gimmick and a crappy way to try to sell more systems. They should be focusing more on great games that live on a single system. The DC used the VMU for interesting things like this, but that was a standard peripheral that cost $10-$20. This is just ridiculous.
Extremely lame. Pathetic direction for Nintendo to take.
As of now, it's a cheap gimmick because no one uses it well. But having seen Final Fantasy: CC in action, there is hope for change. You can play the game using your GBA, and its screen shows you a map and your stats. Pretty cool.
It's kind of like what the DC VMU should have been.
um...when?Quote:
Originally posted by jiji
The DC used the VMU for interesting things like this, but that was a standard peripheral that cost $10-$20. This is just ridiculous.
VMU can't touch GBA when it comes to these kinds of things. you're beyond insane.
It is a hella gimmick of the highest order. Pathetic indeed.
Hey, this is the Nintendo magic their fans demand and vehemently defend. Let them swim in their own shit.
Have fun defending this one, boys.
Too gimmicky. I've always hated the idea because I knew that nothing cool would happen with it.
Lucas, on the VMU issue he was just talking about extra little games that expand the gameplay. Such as you could raise your Chao away from Sonic Adventure and your dreamcast. In sports games you could secretly select your plays on your VMU so your opponent couldn't see. The second example can easily be compared to simply having something such as a map (Zelda...or was it prime..or both..I FORGOT) on the GBA. YAKNOWHATIMSAYIN? ;)
Pacman sounds like a lot of fun. Everything else sucks.
I'll pay 120+ Dollars less and just see that on the TV Screen.Quote:
Originally posted by Mr.Sparkle
As of now, it's a cheap gimmick because no one uses it well. But having seen Final Fantasy: CC in action, there is hope for change. You can play the game using your GBA, and its screen shows you a map and your stats. Pretty cool.
Quote:
Originally posted by rummy
Pacman sounds like a lot of fun. Everything else sucks.
If I had the connectivity and both counterparts were good, I would.
Now that a ton of games HAVE the connectivity, I probably won't be able to buy them because they won't be full games unless I pay a 100 bucks worth of software for one experience.
It's like the old SNES days all over again.
I usually do but I can't here.Quote:
Originally posted by dog$
Hey, this is the Nintendo magic their fans demand and vehemently defend. Let them swim in their own shit.
Have fun defending this one, boys.
They should forget about selling PacMan as a game; Nintendo should bundle it as a playable demo with the GBA+link cable. PacMan is all I'm interested in. I can't afford to shell out $400 for a 4-player GCN gimmick. Nintendo is desperately trying to get GBA owners to buy GCN software and vice-versa.Quote:
Originally posted by rummy
Pacman sounds like a lot of fun. Everything else sucks.
I am purely against it. In fact, I've beaten metroid fusion and I still cannot see the fusion outfit on prime because I haven't got the will to lose $20 for a link cable. I think I'd rather wait till they make a memory card that has internet download support so I can get whatever files I need rather then to keep going with this cross-platform BS.
btw, has nintendo ever considered how to handle people in their 20's reguarding owning multiple GBA's? There sure as hell ain't gonna be anybody around to support it and unless we can get some way to link our gba to the pc with some kinda link server going through gamespy (or something like that) I'm sure their answer will always be to go f**k ourselves... :rolleyes:
here's preying sony whoops their ass in the handheld devision for this.
Quote:
Originally posted by Mr.Sparkle
As of now, it's a cheap gimmick because no one uses it well. But having seen Final Fantasy: CC in action, there is hope for change. You can play the game using your GBA, and its screen shows you a map and your stats. Pretty cool.
It's kind of like what the DC VMU should have been.
so you're saying that nintendo and square are too cheap to give us a map on the normal screen while playing the game? that's such a crock of s***!
as for what the DC VMU should have beem, it's part of the DC controller and with some games, it'll show you things like maps, wanrings, health stats (like RE:CV) and whatnot. The GBA is doing EXACTLY what the VMU did, but there's a difference in paying $20 for a VMU and paying $75-99. for a GBA with a $20 bonus to nintendo for a cord to link it up.
even if I love the games they make, they still give us the run-around more then sony or even microsoft. I hope they get knocked into a 3rd party so they can't play this merry-go-round bulls**t like they always keep doing. (maybe then they'd pull their heads out of their collective a**! ;)
I think it's a cool idea.
What I don't think is cool is that some games require it.
There's going to be a small backlash here from people who bought the GCN but not GBA (like me)... It's like you bought their console, but Nintendo increasingly will only support your investment with software only if you happen to own multiple GBAs. Now since Nintendo's target audience is arguably the family where little Bob and Jane have their own portables (and since GBA has a 100M installed base), this might not be a problem. Yet I'll be left in the dark since my friends aren't gamers--if there's a gaming party, I have to supply everything--so this whole thing kinda stinks for me.
First, I wonder how many of you who say it's a bad idea own a GameCube...or a GBA. I don't have any stats on it but I'll bet you that the majority of people who own a GameCube also own a GBA.
It's not that far fetched a concept. There is something like over 100,000,000 GBAs out there. I personally know 1 dude who owns a GameCube but not a GBA. That's it.
Second, so far only ONE game requires a GBA, Final Fantasy CC (as far as I know Pacman does not require it to play, but I don't know). And at $60 it's a much cheaper controler than say...Steel Battalion's. All told that was a $200 game. Sure it came in a nice box and all but, honestly $40 of that was game and $160 of that you were paying for the controler. If they didn't use that controler, they would never have packaged it in that cool box. Woulda been on the shelf like any other game.
But people LOOOVE that game and it's controler. You can play how many games with it? One? Oh...two, Steel Battalion Online. You'll be able to use the GBA for ALL of these link-only games, plus the games that have been release (although aside from AC, there's no real reason) and at the end of the day...you still got a fucking GBA to play GBA games. Steel Battalion's controler pulls double duty as a controler and a paperweight.
I think it's a very cool idea and the execution will determine how good it is or isn't.
Once again...it's cool to hate Nintendo, whether or not they're giving you a reason for it.
I own a GC, a GBA SP, and the GB Player. The idea still sucks.Quote:
Originally posted by Blaine
First, I wonder how many of you who say it's a bad idea own a GameCube...or a GBA. I don't have any stats on it but I'll bet you that the majority of people who own a GameCube also own a GBA.
What do you think sucks about it?Quote:
Originally posted by Yoshi
I own a GC, a GBA SP, and the GB Player. The idea still sucks.
See my poll for a sample of those stats from TNL users.Quote:
Originally posted by Blaine
First, I wonder how many of you who say it's a bad idea own a GameCube...or a GBA. I don't have any stats on it but I'll bet you that the majority of people who own a GameCube also own a GBA.
Is that including me? :lol:Quote:
It's not that far fetched a concept. I personally know 1 dude who owns a GameCube but not a GBA. That's it.
The person controlling PacMan NEEDS the GBA; the other 3 watch their ghosts on-screen. It's designed that way, in addition to FFCC (mentioned above), Tetra's Trackers, and 4 Swords. GBA is an option for Mario Golf (RPG part), Nintendo Puzzle Collection (on-the-go load-n-play), and the previously released Zelda:WW and Animal Crossing. That's 3 games requiring up to 4 GBAs, 1 game requiring 1 GBA, and 4 offering GBA as an option.Quote:
Second, so far only ONE game requires a GBA, Final Fantasy CC (as far as I know Pacman does not require it to play, but I don't know).
Edit: It seems I was misled by IGN's Japanese interview. Not my fault. :p
FF CC doesn't require the GBA.
Quote:
Originally posted by MonsterMash
FF CC doesn't require the GBA.
Q: So the GBA is needed for multiplayer?
A: That is correct.
From here:
An interview with Akitoshi Kawazu, producer of Final Fantasy Crystal Chronicles
"personally". I don't know you at all, let alone in person. So my figures won't include you.Quote:
Originally posted by RedCoKid
Is that including me? :lol:
What I meant regarding Pacman, as I too have read about it is, that you may be able to still play it with just controlers. Say, that no one plays as Pacman, and you and your friends play as ghosts. As fun? No. But neither is House of The Dead without the lightgun.Quote:
Originally posted by RedCoKid
The person controlling PacMan NEEDS the GBA; the other 3 watch their ghosts on-screen. It's designed that way, in addition to FFCC (mentioned above), Tetra's Trackers, and 4 Swords. GBA is an option for Mario Golf (RPG part), Nintendo Puzzle Collection (on-the-go load-n-play), and the previously released Zelda:WW and Animal Crossing. That's 3 games requiring up to 4 GBAs, 1 game requiring 1 GBA, and 4 offering GBA as an option.
I never saw that Tetra's Trackers and 4 swords require a GBA, but if you say it does, fine by me.
And as far a 4 of them offering it as an option...yeah...but so what? Multiplayer Halo is an option, but only if you have more than one controler. And there's far far more games that you can use (not have to) with the GBA than those listed.
My point really is, is that scarce few GameCube games demand a purchase of a GBA to play. *shrug* If it's 1 or 4 really doesn't change a whole lot.
http://cube.ign.com/articles/402/402172p1.htmlQuote:
The version playable here at E3 strictly demonstrates the four-player gameplay that the title has to offer and does not allow single-players to hit the quest alone, though Square states that both adventures will be essentially the same. Kiosks are set up with four GBA SP systems connected, allowing up to four people to join the action at any time. One thing in particular must be cleared up: players are not required to use a GBA system to play Final Fantasy: Crystal Chronicles in its current form. In the private hands-on playtest that we experienced, only three GBA SP systems were available, thus a Nintendo representative was forced to plug in a standard GCN controller to join the party. The previously mentioned Japanese interview had caused quite a stir among Nintendo fans during the past week in regards to whether four GBA systems were required for multiplayer action, but we can confirm that this is not the case in the version we played. Whether or not this will change for its final release remains to be determined, but we consider it unlikely.
That's cool, much better business to not make a gameboy the required controller.
I don't think it's right that one of those fairy dudes in Wind Waker tried to make me feel bad for not owning a GBA.
Screw that.
Indeed. Unfortunately the article made it sound like the multiplayer wasn't a lot of fun without the GBA as controller. Basically not having a GBA takes away the ability to do stuff you otherwise could do - RPG stuff like item management.Quote:
Originally posted by Kidnemo
That's cool, much better business to not make a gameboy the required controller.
Yeah, basically all the action management is done on the GBA so that it doesn't have to pause for all four players whenever one wants to switch something around. Unfortunately, this means that when somebody without a GBA picks up a new item/spell/whatever, it's automatically swapped with one of their old ones with no control and no ability to swap back. The really need to work out a way for those without GBAs to manage that stuff - perhaps a tiny pop-up menu in the corner of the screen. I definitely applaud the concept of keeping the game going at all times, but not at the expense of control.
Of course, this won't be a problem for me - no one I'd be interested in playing this with is one of these non-GBA-having freaks anyway.
Not needed? My interest for this has returned.
GC & GBA connectively is a shallow, stupid gimmick.
Tetra's Trackers is the stupidest thing at E3, bar none. Do you know what's 2nd stupidest? 4 Swords GC.
This crap needs to go away.
So is Cel Shading. Doesn't really 'change' anything, it just looks different. There are some good cel shaded games (and it's hard for me to admit as I'm thoroughly sick of the fucking technique).Quote:
Originally posted by diffusionx
GC & GBA connectively is a shallow, stupid gimmick.
Gimmicks are always bad, they add variety and variety is good.
And at least so far the games that do use it are actually benefiting from it. Like Madden...that was a stupid use of the GBA, you can see replays. Oooh. But downloading NES games from Animal Crossing is awesome, in my opinion that justifies the cost of the cable alone.
It seems like they're trying new things with gameplay that you couldn't do split screen, and since Nintendo sucks and doesn't have decent Online yet, this is a good thing.
Honestly, 4 swords and CC sound like they'd be very good with the GBA because you have that element of secrecy and..well..deciet against the other players. And that will make for a fucking entertaining Tuesday night (another game like that, check it ou, M.U.L.E. for a variety of obsolete computers).
I'm not trying to change your mind or anything, just it seems like a lot of people keep repeating the 'gimmick' line like anyone is saying it's not. It is. Still can be cool.
I don't know, I guess what I'm trying to see is why the people who aren't liking it, are really not liking.
From my point of view Nintendo isn't trying to force anyone to buy anything. It's more of a capatalizing on people who own both and they're probably hoping that if they can come up with some fun games people will ante up (oh no, not good games, god forbig ;)).
At the end of the day, you don't have to buy any games ever from anyone and if you want Pacman that's a choice. You may have to buy an GBA if you don't have one to do it. Very similar to a lightgun. More expensive, hell yeah, but when all is said and done it's also twenty times more useful.
There's a whole hell of a lot of very cool and original things that can be done with this. I'm looking forward to it.
I don't really care if anyone else is, but I'm just interested in why, if anyone can share.
No one is arguing the merits of such a linkup system, as we can obviously see what Nintendo is trying to accomplish. The argument here is that we just don't give a shit, no matter how often we're told that we should think otherwise.
"I don't care" isn't an opinion. It's a lack of opinion.Quote:
Originally posted by omfgninjas
The argument here is that we just don't give a shit, no matter how often we're told that we should think otherwise.
"You wanna go to the movies or burn your sister with matches?" "I don't care". You could do either, you could do neither, doesn't matter.
"It sucks" is an opinion. There's a difference between apathy and negativity.
I'm not telling anyone what they should think because I don't care.
I am, however, interested in why someone thinks it sucks/is lame/ whatever, if for no other reason than it's something to talk about.
Welcome to TNL.Quote:
Originally posted by Blaine
"I don't care" isn't an opinion. It's a lack of opinion.
"You wanna go to the movies or burn your sister with matches?" "I don't care". You could do either, you could do neither, doesn't matter.
"It sucks" is an opinion. There's a difference between apathy and negativity.
I'm not telling anyone what they should think because I don't care.
I am, however, interested in why someone thinks it sucks/is lame/ whatever, if for no other reason than it's something to talk about.
Ha, My thoughts exactly.Quote:
Originally posted by jiji
It's lame. It still is a gimmick and a crappy way to try to sell more systems. They should be focusing more on great games that live on a single system. The DC used the VMU for interesting things like this, but that was a standard peripheral that cost $10-$20. This is just ridiculous.
It's nice not have the main game screen so cluttered, but not enough to justify such a high premium.Quote:
Originally posted by unit003
so you're saying that nintendo and square are too cheap to give us a map on the normal screen while playing the game? that's such a crock of s***!
Not true. The vmu was only capable of displaying one, maybe two, important pieces of information due to its low res. Example: play calling on the VMU for NFL 2kX was worthless, because you only had to memorize each play in order to use the feature. On a GBA, you can actually draw the diagrams.Quote:
The GBA is doing EXACTLY what the VMU did, but there's a difference in paying $20 for a VMU and paying $75-99. for a GBA with a $20 bonus to nintendo for a cord to link it up.
The link can be a great addition, but every game would need to use it in order to be worth while.
I don't love it or anything, but I also don't see a reason to complain about it either. I mean you need it for what, like three games, big fucking deal. Don't buy those games then. Would the Pac-Man game work with out it? No. It wouldn't be a lot of fun if everybody could see where the person controlling Pac-Man was, now would it. Would you rather they made FF:CC split screen so everyone could manage their stats and what not on their own tiny section of the TV, or worse pausing the action completely, Not me. Also what's so wrong with the games that don't need it, but gives you extra stuff if you link. Like linking the two Metroids up. God forbid Nintendo giving it's best consumers something extra. I rarely use the link feature, but bitching about it is stupid.
Geez, you people live to hate on Nintendo. At least they're trying to do things a little differently. It just provides the fans a neat little extra that is in no way shape or form required to be purchased. Nintendo looks at it like a Metroid fan will probably own Prime and Fusion, so they let you unlock the fusion suit in Prime. If you don't care, no big loss, you can still play and fully enjoy both or even one of the games.
When your exalted Sony comes up with this "connectivity" feature between the PSP and PS2/3, it will be the breath of fresh air that the industry needed, won't it? Instead of the industry leader trying to do things differently and try to advance the industry, all they do is publish sequel after endless sequel. Oops, I forgot, they did allow you to watch DVD movies on your game console.
To be honest with you, it hasn't affected me too much. I used it in animal crossing. Thats it.
An action RPG where you used the GBA for magic would be neat.
Kinda like Kingdom Hearts or something.
Ya Spike, but they also used their network adapter for internet play and not Lan play. Anyway, onto BF1942.
There is no Nintendo hate conspiracy here. The thread asked if we liked the connectivity, and some in the TNL community responded with a loud "no."
There are much better uses for Nintendo's time than for them to waste mine with their linkup garbage.
I couldn't have said it any better. If you have the 2 you get a bonus. If you don't, that's great too. Bitching about it is for cry babies. If you don't like it, don't buy it and please stop telling the people who do like it that it's useless.Quote:
Originally posted by usagi
God forbid Nintendo giving it's best consumers something extra. I rarely use the link feature, but bitching about it is stupid.
Wrong, it'll be just as pointless. People should not buy handheld devices, period, and shit like this is proof. If no GBAs or SPs were bought we wouldn't be in this situation now of Nintendo trying to insist those $90 pieces of shit you people bought actually should serve as controllers in the games they're making now (or, in some of Nintendo's cases, games they made a decade ago).Quote:
Originally posted by Spike
When your exalted Sony comes up with this "connectivity" feature between the PSP and PS2/3, it will be the breath of fresh air that the industry needed, won't it?
Which company are you talking about, again?Quote:
Instead of the industry leader trying to do things differently and try to advance the industry, all they do is publish sequel after endless sequel.
http://www.golem.de/0110/16479-gamecube_q.jpgQuote:
Oops, I forgot, they did allow you to watch DVD movies on your game console.
There's no commission to uncover a conspiracy here. I've been asking why people feel so negative about it. So far no one has given me a reason beyond "just because". So I continued to ask. People have hinted towards the price, which I think is a good point. But some people also seem to think the Dreamcast VMU was a $10 purchase. It's only $10 now. It cost just as much as a game when it came out. I think I paid $40 for mine. GBA is $60 (regular one works as well as an SP). In my mind, a GBA offers a lot more value for purchase than a VMU ever did. Significantly more.Quote:
Originally posted by omfgninjas
There is no Nintendo hate conspiracy here. The thread asked if we liked the connectivity, and some in the TNL community responded with a loud "no."
There are much better uses for Nintendo's time than for them to waste mine with their linkup garbage.
All I'm trying to do is find why people aren't liking it, that's all. I'm not trying to convince someone they should or shouldn't like something. If they have a valid reason, fine. I'm interested in hearing it.
If they hate it just because it's Nintendo, that's fine. I'm not thier judge (and that's not implying any 'conspiracy' because you and everyone here know perfectly well that there are people who will hate whatever any company in question does, regardless. There are people who hate Microsoft, Nintendo and Sony and they all do the same things.).
Just strikes me as odd that people can respond with a loud "no" but then have nothing further to say.
1. Nintendo is not insisting that they are to be used as controllers. They can be used, but it is not a requirement.Quote:
Originally posted by dog$
Wrong, it'll be just as pointless. People should not buy handheld devices, period, and shit like this is proof. If no GBAs or SPs were bought we wouldn't be in this situation now of Nintendo trying to insist those $90 pieces of shit you people bought actually should serve as controllers in the games they're making now (or, in some of Nintendo's cases, games they made a decade ago).
Which company are you talking about, again?
http://www.golem.de/0110/16479-gamecube_q.jpg
2. Sony, of course.
3. Okay, I'll give you that.;) But, when the PS2 launched, people bought more DVD movies than they did games, for the greater part of the first year of its life.
The only game I had ever used the GC/GBA connection was with Animal Crossing and I gave up on that game after having to deal with illiterate anthropomorphic animals and still couldn't get Punch-Out.
I want to try out that level editor in Donkey Kong Plus though.
Reminds me of when I worked as an apprentice watchsmith.Quote:
Originally posted by Johnny Undaunted
I gave up on that game after having to deal with illiterate anthropomorphic animals...
Just wish I could have shoved some of those customers into a pit too.
Quote:
Originally posted by dog$
Wrong, it'll be just as pointless. People should not buy handheld devices, period, and shit like this is proof. If no GBAs or SPs were bought we wouldn't be in this situation now of Nintendo trying to insist those $90 pieces of shit you people bought actually should serve as controllers in the games they're making now (or, in some of Nintendo's cases, games they made a decade ago).
You are a fucking idiot! If you don't want a handheld that's fine. Don't tell us that we shouldn't have them dumb ass.
I have't seen it used well yet, but the additional screen comes in handy for multiplayer options like in Zelda.
I really don't see why people are making a big fuss over this though. Nintendo is only trying to make something different, if you wanted the same gameplay, I don't understand why you even bought a GC. And it is not like they are making you buy all this stuffa t gun point. Go play something else if you don't like this.
Quote:
If no GBAs or SPs were bought we wouldn't be in this situation now of Nintendo trying to insist those $90 pieces of shit you people bought actually should serve as controllers in the games they're making now (or, in some of Nintendo's cases, games they made a decade ago).
Actually I play GBA games 5 times more than consoles games as I find them much more interesting. I have Celda, Metroid Prime and DW:XL but I haven't even spent even 3 hours in any of those games because I find them boring.
If you want to waste your money on handheld shit, that's fine too. Don't get all pissy on me just because I'm giving you the facts, though.Quote:
Originally posted by Nigel-The-Landstalker
You are a fucking idiot! If you don't want a handheld that's fine. Don't tell us that we shouldn't have them dumb ass.
I have no problem with games having the link feature. What I do have a problem with is Nintendo's shit idea to go with connectivity OVER online play. Animal Crossing 2 is a game screaming to be online and they speak of GBA connectivity over online play. That just sucks. The most they seem to be willing to do is some half-ass LAN connection for Mario Kart and a few other games.Quote:
Originally posted by Nigel-The-Landstalker
I couldn't have said it any better. If you have the 2 you get a bonus. If you don't, that's great too. Bitching about it is for cry babies. If you don't like it, don't buy it and please stop telling the people who do like it that it's useless.
It's a decision of Sega-like proportions.
Preach on brother.Quote:
Originally posted by Melf
I have no problem with games having the link feature. What I do have a problem with is Nintendo's shit idea to go with connectivity OVER online play. Animal Crossing 2 is a game screaming to be online and they speak of GBA connectivity over online play. That just sucks. The most they seem to be willing to do is some half-ass LAN connection for Mario Kart and a few other games.
It's a decision of Sega-like proportions.
I'm ashamed about how excited I am about the LAN feature.
There should be just straight, regular online.
In this regard, I definately think I've learned to expect Nintendo not to make the jump to online easy and I'm just happy to see any progress at all. Networking is networking in my book, LAN or WAN...shit...better than nothing.
But that's still not cool at all.
And where exactly are these facts coming from? Your opinion? What an assclown! It's only a waste of my money if it's not worth it to me. Thanks for telling me, and the millions of GBA owners how we feel about our purchases. Your stupidity knows no bounds.Quote:
Originally posted by dog$
If you want to waste your money on handheld shit, that's fine too. Don't get all pissy on me just because I'm giving you the facts, though.
Quote:
Originally posted by Blaine
So I continued to ask. People have hinted towards the price, which I think is a good point. But some people also seem to think the Dreamcast VMU was a $10 purchase. It's only $10 now. It cost just as much as a game when it came out. I think I paid $40 for mine. GBA is $60 (regular one works as well as an SP). In my mind, a GBA offers a lot more value for purchase than a VMU ever did. Significantly more.
If you paid $40 for a VMU, someone ripped you off big time. I think the most they sold for, was $24. That price dropped to $20 six months later. The one thing that I really liked about the VMU, was that you could check out the game save files available on the memory card, without putting it in your DC. Sure the batteries only lasted about 6 weeks, but it was a nice option for someone who owned 3 or 4 VMU's.
You have to admit though, that all the uses of the GBA link to Gamecube, have been more gimmick than really being useful. Did you really need to own both Metroid Prime and Fusion, to play the original metroid? They could have just as easily offered the game to both the GBA and GC owners, who completed the games. Instead, Nintendo used that as incentive to get you to purchase both titles. There's a sucker born every minute.
A great use for the GBA/GC connectivity, would be better suited as an option to make a game a better experience, without having to buy 2 titles. Make an air combat game, where the GC user is the pilot and the co-player is his co-pilot. The co-pilot is responsible for changing weapons and dropping chaff, and giving radar readings to the pilot. The pilot takes the information given to him from his partner (Bandit at 12 o'clock) the pilot makes the necessary moves to avoid the confrontation and position himself. Just like a real pilot is dependent on his Co-pilot. Make this connectivity an interactive experience and something beyond just minor upgrades and special bonuses, that are really in the game anyways.
I totally agree. I would love to see them go online with some of their games. The fact is that Nintendo said they won't go until they can make money on it. I don't agree with their games not being online but at least they are saying so. The only place you hear about online Nintendo games is on forum boards and rumor mills.Quote:
Originally posted by Melf
I have no problem with games having the link feature. What I do have a problem with is Nintendo's shit idea to go with connectivity OVER online play. Animal Crossing 2 is a game screaming to be online and they speak of GBA connectivity over online play. That just sucks. The most they seem to be willing to do is some half-ass LAN connection for Mario Kart and a few other games.
It's a decision of Sega-like proportions.
Fact: If nobody bought a GBA, GBA would be discontinued.
Fact: If GBA was discontinued, Nintendo wouldn't be offering this link-up BS as their source of innovation.
Fact: If GBA was discontinued, Sony wouldn't be making the PSP.
But since you people have to buy your handhelds, this has to happen too. These are the consequences of your actions. Suffer.
Quote:
I have no problem with games having the link feature. What I do have a problem with is Nintendo's shit idea to go with connectivity OVER online play. Animal Crossing 2 is a game screaming to be online and they speak of GBA connectivity over online play. That just sucks. The most they seem to be willing to do is some half-ass LAN connection for Mario Kart and a few other games.
Do you people just make up crap to suit your own arguments?
http://ultimategamez.com/newspro/ful...3027022,66127,Quote:
Today I went to the Gamespy booth to conduct a small and simple interview with GameSpy's President, Jon Epstein. After exchanging business cards, the questions began.
The word "tunneling" was introduced to many gamers with the software that Gamespy released for Halo and many of other Xbox games that didn't utilize Xbox Live but did use LAN.
Tunneling IS NOT being used for any of Nintendo's upcoming LAN utilized games. The information which came to me as a huge shock, is actually better than it sounds. According to Gamespy, Nintendo came to them about a year ago for LAN software. Nintendo did not want to use "tunneling, because it would require gamers excessive hardware such as hooking up multiple cables, computers, hubs, and what not.
Instead, Mr. Epstein, went on to reveal that Nintendo will be using Gamespy developed "in-game" software. Much is not known about this except the fact that all gamers have to do is hook an internet cord from the Gamecube to their broadband modem and that's it. You are online as soon as you plug in the ethernet cord and choose the LAN option.
I repeat: "tunneling" will not be used and extra hubs, computers, and extra ethernet cords will not be needed as Nintendo wanted to keep it simple. It is simple in-game software that will be used in upcoming Nintendo LAN games.
Besides Nintendo won't be able to do Animal Crossing justice unless they charged fees which they don't hink is a profitable set up right now.
Quote:
Originally posted by dog$
Fact: If nobody bought a GBA, GBA would be discontinued.
Fact: If GBA was discontinued, Nintendo wouldn't be offering this link-up BS as their source of innovation.
Fact: If GBA was discontinued, Sony wouldn't be making the PSP.
But since you people have to buy your handhelds, this has to happen too. These are the consequences of your actions. Suffer.
Fact: None of the above is fact. Sales numbers prove that. Not to mention that all of your facts start with if. By the way,if the consequences of my actions is great games that I can't get elsewhere then I'll gladly suffer.
That's all Nintendo is hoping for too.
I wish I had pockets as deep as yours.
hint: sales numbers prove the product is supported. If a product is NOT supported, the company usually tends to NOT make the product anymore.
So, I'm not wrong.
I love the idea, it just hasn't been implemented to its full potential as of yet. Not even close.
Quote:
Originally posted by Damian79
Do you people just make up crap to suit your own arguments?
Do you read what you post? The article is referring to LAN play, not actual online play.
Where did I post about hubs or extra cords? I said the LAN play was half-ass because REAL ONLINE PLAY WOULD BE BETTER. I could give a shit about just plug and play LAN games. They're still LAN.
If Nintendo got Gamespy to make the in game software that's pretty fucking smart on Nintendo's part. It pretty much guaranties their games will be online with minimum support from Nintendo.
Read it again.Quote:
Do you read what you post? The article is referring to LAN play, not actual online play.
It's funny how all of your arguments start with "if" and then you spew it like it is the way it is. The fact is that the GBA is supported so you are wrong.Quote:
Originally posted by dog$
hint: sales numbers prove the product is supported. If a product is NOT supported, the company usually tends to NOT make the product anymore.
So, I'm not wrong.
I read it again and still can't find where it mentions the games will be truly online.
So what you're saying is that by choosing the LAN option I can actually play online with someone across the country?Quote:
Instead, Mr. Epstein, went on to reveal that Nintendo will be using Gamespy developed "in-game" software. Much is not known about this except the fact that all gamers have to do is hook an internet cord from the Gamecube to their broadband modem and that's it. You are online as soon as you plug in the ethernet cord and choose the LAN option.
I repeat: "tunneling" will not be used and extra hubs, computers, and extra ethernet cords will not be needed as Nintendo wanted to keep it simple. It is simple in-game software that will be used in upcoming Nintendo LAN games.
Oops, it doesn't say that.
thats fucking awesome so all those lan games are bassicaly onlineQuote:
Today I went to the Gamespy booth to conduct a small and simple interview with GameSpy's President, Jon Epstein. After exchanging business cards, the questions began.
The word "tunneling" was introduced to many gamers with the software that Gamespy released for Halo and many of other Xbox games that didn't utilize Xbox Live but did use LAN.
Tunneling IS NOT being used for any of Nintendo's upcoming LAN utilized games. The information which came to me as a huge shock, is actually better than it sounds. According to Gamespy, Nintendo came to them about a year ago for LAN software. Nintendo did not want to use "tunneling, because it would require gamers excessive hardware such as hooking up multiple cables, computers, hubs, and what not.
Instead, Mr. Epstein, went on to reveal that Nintendo will be using Gamespy developed "in-game" software. Much is not known about this except the fact that all gamers have to do is hook an internet cord from the Gamecube to their broadband modem and that's it. You are online as soon as you plug in the ethernet cord and choose the LAN option.
I repeat: "tunneling" will not be used and extra hubs, computers, and extra ethernet cords will not be needed as Nintendo wanted to keep it simple. It is simple in-game software that will be used in upcoming Nintendo LAN games.
I still don't see it. There may be in game software but have they mentioned anything about servers, or any of the other elements of true online play?
I'm not trying to be a dick, I just don't believe Nintendo when they talk about online gaming.
Quote:
Originally posted by Melf
I still don't see it. There may be in game software but have they mentioned anything about servers, or any of the other elements of true online play?
I'm not trying to be a dick, I just don't believe Nintendo when they talk about online gaming.
They are probably taking the same stance they took with the CD add-on with the SNES. The only thing that would make me think otherwise, is that they did release broadband and dial-up adaptors.
you dont need to have servers
its probably a simple P2P solution like 95% of online games on the PC
where one player hosts a game or its run through gamespys network since its using their technology
even in lan play you would need a HOST machine id imagine
so some one acts as the host machine and you find a game to play or host one yourself
this better work behind a router though otherwise ill be pissed
Me too.Quote:
this better work behind a router though otherwise ill be pissed
Now it makes sense.
That doesn't sound so bad afterall. I would assume that all these games would then be free of charge to play, no?
...and yes, it had better work behind a router or I'll be pissed as well.
BTW these were the plans for it in May 2002
http://www.gamespyindustries.com/pre...nintendo.shtml
GameSpy To Provide Middleware Tools and Online Service Support for NINTENDO GAMECUBE™ Developers
Complete Middleware/Services Solution Gets Developers Online Quickly, Easily
(Irvine, Calif.) – May 21, 2002. Internet online gaming leader GameSpy Industries today announced its support for the just-announced Nintendo GameCube online gaming initiative. The company, which has become an authorized Nintendo tools provider, will port its middleware and back-end services developer suites for the Nintendo GameCube, for shipment to developers in early July.
GameSpy provides game developers with a collection of middleware tools which, when combined with GameSpy's back-end server infrastructure, enable a low-cost turnkey online gaming solution. GameSpy's tools are easy to integrate and interface-neutral, allowing developers to provide the following functionalities seamlessly within their Nintendo GameCube games:
In-Game Player Matchmaking Text Chat, Instant Messaging, and Buddy Lists
Online Competitions and High Score Ladders
Online Data Storage (for virtual memory card applications)
Usage and Game Statistics Reporting and Analysis
Data Transfer to and from the Internet
GameSpy's tools greatly reduce the cost and time required for developers to bring their titles online, and to manage the online gaming experience after game launch.
"Our middleware tools will allow Nintendo developers to add critical online features to their Nintendo GameCube games within a day or two, in most cases," said Mark Surfas, CEO of GameSpy. "But that's just the beginning of what GameSpy provides. We operate the servers, provide the bandwidth, and manage the whole online back-end once the game ships, saving publishers and developers hundreds of thousands in potential hardware, connectivity and staffing costs."
GameSpy's technology and back-end services have been powering online gaming experiences for more than five years, across all major next-generation console platforms and all major PC operating systems.
"By working with GameSpy, we're able to bring our developers proven technology, a fully-outsourced back-end solution, and years of expertise in making the best online experiences for game players." said Jim Merrick, Network Marketing Director, Nintendo of America Inc.
Nintendo GameCube developers will be able to purchase GameSpy's Developer Toolbox for $995, which provides complete SDK source code, sample applications, and documentation, in early July, to begin testing code and back-end integration. Pricing for deployment licenses is based on the specific toolkit suites used by the game developer.
For more information on GameSpy's middleware, and to become a GameSpy registered developer, visit www.gamespy.net or send e-mail to devrelations@gamespy.com.
Which begs the question:
What's in it for GameSpy? Is this middleware like Renderware, where they make money when the developers buy thier kits?
Or is this going to be a situation where...payment is in order to GameSpy.
Feels like the first, but I've been screwed enough to know the second isn't impossible.
i would imagine soQuote:
Originally posted by Melf
Now it makes sense.
That doesn't sound so bad afterall. I would assume that all these games would then be free of charge to play, no?
...and yes, it had better work behind a router or I'll be pissed as well.
unlike MS most people dont charge for P2P solutions ;)
Quote:
Originally posted by Damian79
GameSpy's tools greatly reduce the cost and time required for developers to bring their titles online, and to manage the online gaming experience after game launch.
"Our middleware tools will allow Nintendo developers to add critical online features to their Nintendo GameCube games within a day or two, in most cases," said Mark Surfas, CEO of GameSpy. "But that's just the beginning of what GameSpy provides. We operate the servers, provide the bandwidth, and manage the whole online back-end once the game ships, saving publishers and developers hundreds of thousands in potential hardware, connectivity and staffing costs."
GameSpy's technology and back-end services have been powering online gaming experiences for more than five years, across all major next-generation console platforms and all major PC operating systems.
"By working with GameSpy, we're able to bring our developers proven technology, a fully-outsourced back-end solution, and years of expertise in making the best online experiences for game players." said Jim Merrick, Network Marketing Director, Nintendo of America Inc.
Nintendo GameCube developers will be able to purchase GameSpy's Developer Toolbox for $995, which provides complete SDK source code, sample applications, and documentation, in early July, to begin testing code and back-end integration. Pricing for deployment licenses is based on the specific toolkit suites used by the game developer.
so why the fuck havent any GAH
in a day or two they could add online play but the bastards dont
GGGRRRRR
look at the full article they mention where it is middleware that developers buy kits for at about 1000 bucksQuote:
Originally posted by Blaine
Which begs the question:
What's in it for GameSpy? Is this middleware like Renderware, where they make money when the developers buy thier kits?
Or is this going to be a situation where...payment is in order to GameSpy.
Feels like the first, but I've been screwed enough to know the second isn't impossible.
Please, John, when Nintendo figures out how to make money with online games, you'll see Nintendo online games.
Until that day, they've got the "Don't ask, don't tell" theory going.
Don't ask about online, and don't tell what the fuck the plan is.
Quote:
so why the fuck havent any GAH
in a day or two they could add online play but the bastards dont
GGGRRRRR
Maybe the tools or the hardware wasn't available yet?
Right. It's middleware. I mentioned that.Quote:
Originally posted by Shin Johnpv
look at the full article they mention where it is middleware that developers buy kits for at about 1000 bucks
But the question I still have is...will it be just like any other middlewear or will Gamespy have something else into it? 1000 a kit is okay money, particularly if that's a per-game licence.
Or...and I stress there is no indication that this is true, but only a small notion of trepidation on my part...will Gamespy see further revenue via a subscription fee or something? If you notice, they've made sure to mention that they "run the servers" and provide the bandwith. Things like that cost money. Will those expenses be covered by thier licencing of the code or will further payment must be made to GameSpy by the users. Rhetorical question at this point because I don't think I'm asking anyone who actually knows first hand.
Yes, Nintendo should discontinue the GBA because you don't like it. :rolleyes:Quote:
Originally posted by dog$
Fact: If nobody bought a GBA, GBA would be discontinued.
Fact: If GBA was discontinued, Nintendo wouldn't be offering this link-up BS as their source of innovation.
Fact: If GBA was discontinued, Sony wouldn't be making the PSP.
But since you people have to buy your handhelds, this has to happen too. These are the consequences of your actions. Suffer.
Quit acting like a douche bag just cuz you happen to be in the minority. Play your console games and stop complaining.
Quote:
Originally posted by Blaine
Right. It's middleware. I mentioned that.
But the question I still have is...will it be just like any other middlewear or will Gamespy have something else into it? 1000 a kit is okay money, particularly if that's a per-game licence.
Or...and I stress there is no indication that this is true, but only a small notion of trepidation on my part...will Gamespy see further revenue via a subscription fee or something? If you notice, they've made sure to mention that they "run the servers" and provide the bandwith. Things like that cost money. Will those expenses be covered by thier licencing of the code or will further payment must be made to GameSpy by the users. Rhetorical question at this point because I don't think I'm asking anyone who actually knows first hand.
from the looks of the article it looks like the SDK (software developers kit) will be 1000 bucks and then theres this "Pricing for deployment licenses is based on the specific toolkit suites used by the game developer." so it sounds to me like developers will also have to buy a liscence per game
kinda how developers pay for a dev kit and then have to pay a liscence for each game they make on a system
probably the same thing here would be my guess
from the sounds of it it doesnt sound like its going to be an end user cost
No money and allowance to get = no official Nintendo online plan.
Only reason I can't convince myself of that is this:Quote:
Originally posted by Shin Johnpv
from the looks of the article it looks like the SDK (software developers kit) will be 1000 bucks and then theres this "Pricing for deployment licenses is based on the specific toolkit suites used by the game developer." so it sounds to me like developers will also have to buy a liscence per game
kinda how developers pay for a dev kit and then have to pay a liscence for each game they make on a system
probably the same thing here would be my guess
from the sounds of it it doesnt sound like its going to be an end user cost
Middleware products typically exist as a one-time purchase. You have further restrictions such as "once per game" or "once per year" or what have you, but if we were to make a game (depending on the product) we could get a one game licence. We never have to pay anything again.
That's the thing though...Gamespy will sell thier kit and make money off of it, but for game x this current model says that's the ONLY money they'll ever see for it.
And a thousand dollars is chump change for running something like a game server (bandwith as well) for an indeterminate number of people (we'll say...10,000 max) for an indeterminate amount of time. And that's me pretending the whole grand is going to operating costs and they never pay the people who actually created the kit.
So while the money they made from Nintendo implementing thier software in Mario Kart was paid, they're still incurring costs from the games existence, i.e. people are playing it on thier servers.
It doesn't add up for me. There has to be more money coming in from somewhere. Ads won't cut it and unless Nintendo or GameSpy are a whole lot more generous than I'm giving them credit for.
Someone gots to pay.
except the servers they are hosting are hosting games
it sounds like a P2P solution meaning one of the guys on their GC will be hosting the game not Gamespy
Gamespy is only hosting the connecting aspect
the chat aspect
kinda like what that SNAP thing or what ever its called from sega
something like that I would imagine uses little bandwidth and doesnt need much of a server
Right, there are no Nintendo games with a persitant multiplayer field (like a MMORPG). In a case like that, the server has to know and track everything in the game (it has to know the game's 'state') and contiunually update the state to hundreds of players. That requires beef.Quote:
Originally posted by Shin Johnpv
except the servers they are hosting are hosting games
it sounds like a P2P solution meaning one of the guys on their GC will be hosting the game not Gamespy
Gamespy is only hosting the connecting aspect
the chat aspect
kinda like what that SNAP thing or what ever its called from sega
something like that I would imagine uses little bandwidth and doesnt need much of a server
In this case, no state is needed to maintain since everyone who is playing is always connected (always meaning for the duration of that game. Sorta simple logic. If you're not connected, you can't be playing) and since they're all using the same game with the engine then everyones game will respond the same to whatever new information is given. That is to say, the game's state can be kept in sync by only telling the clients the barest minimum of information.
Even with something like...a packet relay, those Kb add up. I mean, think about it. I'm really not much of a networking guy, I understand whats going on to a degree but that's about it. So keep that in mind if anyone spots any glaring logic-errors on my part.
People will probably be playing in at least a 4 player game. We'll say the game uses a 24 byte packet (I have NO idea, wouldn't even be able to begin to guess, I pulled that number right out of the blue. But I can see it being higher, but not so much lower).
We'll say the clients update thier state twice a second. Again, out of the blue, probably higher, lower would be really bad.
So for each player who is playing theres an up transfer of 48 bytes a second. Each player recieves 48 bytes a second. That's 96 bytes per person per second. 4 players is 344bytes per.
Average game...we'll say...5 minutes. That's 300 seconds times 344bytes, or 103,200bytes (103kb). A fair estimate is 10 games at any given moment online (average, peak times and lulls).
Which is 1.03MB every 5 minutes, 12.36MB every hour or 296.64MB daily.
And that's just packet data, not including the bandwith on thier chat services, IM and 'virtual data hosting' or other transfers that they'll see by people who bought games that were the end result of thier kit.
That number is about 9 gig a month. Which is really, in this day and age, nothin'. You can cover that with a $10 a month webserver (not to say that a regular old webserver could keep up).
But my point is this. All of that is based off of my 24byte packet, 4 player game with a maximum average of 10 games at any given time.
Half-life uses a 600 byte packet, sent approx. 2 a second (once every .4 seconds).
Twenty five times my estimate. If you think about that and the fact 40 people online, on average, is a really low ball number.
You can see that JUST the passing of packets (Halflife packet size, our 9 gigs times 25 [9 gig for $10 estimate]) will stand to cost Gamespy $3000 a year.
Now remember that they're offering a bunch of service in addition to that, which has to include employees who also earn pay.
But even if GameSpy was run by AI, solar powered robots, who required no maintanace (and also recieved no pay for writing the SDK), GameSpy loses $2,000 a year for every game that uses them just for the packet transfer alone. And I low balled every number I could concivable do.
So like I was saying. Someones gots to pay. And unless Nintendo or Gamespy are more generous than I give them credit for. I can't help but think that someone is gonna be me.
..Not that I really have a big issue with that, mind. I understand this sort of thing is expensive. I'm just wondering how much and how long.
HEY! Maybe I'm totally wrong, I'd be all for that.
.....
And now that I go back and re-read that. Each player will up 48b and down 154b (everyone's packets but thier own...right? Yeah, I think that's right).
About 1.6 times what I guestimated.
Yeah, this whole post wasn't that mathematically sound but, my point still stands.
Money.Quote:
Originally posted by Blaine
Which begs the question:
What's in it for GameSpy? Is this middleware like Renderware, where they make money when the developers buy thier kits?
Or is this going to be a situation where...payment is in order to GameSpy.
Feels like the first, but I've been screwed enough to know the second isn't impossible.
Words of reason and clarity.Quote:
Originally posted by MVS
Please, John, when Nintendo figures out how to make money with online games, you'll see Nintendo online games.
Until that day, they've got the "Don't ask, don't tell" theory going.
Don't ask about online, and don't tell what the fuck the plan is.
This is what makes it a very UN-Sega like decision. Good business isn't always good for gamers.
Most people don't like paying monthly fee's, and charging people in addition to upfront isn't what Nintendo wants to do, obviously. I think they should couple with a third party, give them the ad revenue for the interface (Gamespy Arcade, etc.) and just do it like that.
It won't happen, but it's a solution.
You hear flak about it because it's like Nintendo's only idea. Everytime you hear an inteviewer ask about how they're going to overtake Xbox, they just cackle "More Connectivity!". It's a novelty, not a system seller. Nintendo needs to realize it's not going to save the system.
I have a friend who thinks that a blow-job is the key to world peace.Quote:
Originally posted by Frogacuda
You hear flak about it because it's like Nintendo's only idea. Everytime you hear an inteviewer ask about how they're going to overtake Xbox, they just cackle "More Connectivity!". It's a novelty, not a system seller. Nintendo needs to realize it's not going to save the system.
She's probably not right. Amazingly that doesn't make a blow-job any less enjoyable.
Even if Nintendo has a convoluted view of how important the connectivity is (which they do) doesn't automatically mean that the games that use it 'suck'.
Just because it won't do what they think it's going to do, doesn't mean it's not gonna be fun.
Yeah, because we all know that Sega always makes decisions based on it's customers.:rolleyes:Quote:
Originally posted by Andrew
This is what makes it a very UN-Sega like decision. Good business isn't always good for gamers.
It just makes it boring, and a waste of time.Quote:
Originally posted by Blaine
Just because it won't do what they think it's going to do, doesn't mean it's not gonna be fun.
It's interesting, and a step towards trying something different, and Nintendo gets reamed up the ass. Yeah, it's a gimmick, but they TRIED to do something new.
All of you think way too high of your own opinions. Don't like connectivity? Fine. Do? Great. Who gives a rat's ass as to what you think when you'll gladly go overboard in vehemently spitting on innovation when you ask for it, or blindly defending it when it's half-assed?
They don't - it just reeks of fandom around here.Quote:
Originally posted by Nigel-The-Landstalker
Yeah, because we all know that Sega always makes decisions based on it's customers.:rolleyes:
Apparently you missed the part where I said doesn't always.Quote:
Originally posted by Nigel-The-Landstalker
Yeah, because we all know that Sega always makes decisions based on it's customers.:rolleyes:
Blaine the mistake in your equation is when the company buys the programing tools they arent going to spend 1000 on one of them
theyre going to need to buy a liscence for every machine that its going to be used on
so if theyll have 10 programers working on it thats 10 liscences they need to buy thats 10,000 right there which would more than cover your estimated 3,000 a year
Depending on the licence, yes that's possible. Some licences are a per-project/game basis, some are per year, some are per computer...I have no idea what GameSpy's licencing will be like.Quote:
Originally posted by Shin Johnpv
Blaine the mistake in your equation is when the company buys the programing tools they arent going to spend 1000 on one of them
theyre going to need to buy a liscence for every machine that its going to be used on
However, even playing devil's advocate...it's a Turnkey solution. According to it's own documentation, it makes a game online ready in 2 days.
So if we assume this is relatively true, why would you have ten programers working on it? So you can have it done in 4 hours at 10 times your cost?
Developers are very aware of these things. If it is a per install basis, you can bet they will do it in an inexpensive way as possible.
And if it's as easy as advertised...sounds like it'll be by one install.
http://www.n-philes.com/php/epvfuyafufvplkukluk.php
If this Gamespy stuff is in fact true, this pretty much confirms we won't be paying for it.
I'd just like to add that having downloadable GBA demos on a GC demo disc is awesome.