Nintendo's Uncertain future.

[Mamoscott]

It should tell you that they are retaining customers and keeping them loyal by giving them what they want.

Except that there is very little evidence sales-wise indicating that this is what a significant number of console gamers want right now. Maybe in a few years when broadband has had a chance to gain some more steam. Are MS and Sony going to be at an advantage because they'll have been running online services for longer? Probably, but they've also spent a ton of money in the process of gaining that advantage.

[Diff-chan]

Sony, yes (eye toy, ICO etc.) but MS not as far as I can see. So far online play has added nothing with the exception of being able to play against human opponents more easily. IMO PC devs are pushing the envelope far more than console devs in the online field and offline.

While all of the console devs offer different styles of gameplay none have really pushed the envelope.

See Damian, here's how I see it: the online console market is very young, it's essentially where the PC online was back in 1996: experimental games, some promising titles in development, but still more of a cool concept than anything else.

And then, in 1997, Ultima Online came out, everything exploded, it was awesome. Online gaming start to rule right at that moment, thanks to GameSpy and shit becoming more mature, Q2CTF, The Edge, etc., it was the best.

Right now, yea, console online kinda sucks, it's really immature, a lot of the games don't really need to be online, they're cool and its fun to play online with TNL people or whatever but it's not amazing or groundbreaking (I maintain that you can't have much more fun in an online game than with Crimson Skies for XB but I digress).

However, the market will blow up before long. Probably the next generation. When the PSX came out, it sold 120,000 units at launch, and that was a huge success. Now, if a console sells 120,000 at launch it's a miserable failure. So 750,000 online XB owners or 1.5 million PS2 owners might seem miniscule now but it's a lot better than zero, and it's just the start.

Anyway, basically what Nintendo is saying is, "the minute online console gaming blows up and becomes great and starts making money we will be there with a perfect online system and a perfect scheme and everyone will love us and we will take over the world once more". Not gonna happen.

It's better to be around now, setting up the technology, laying the groundwork, getting what customers you can, so when it gets big you're gonna be right there.

As of this moment it looks like Nintendo will be left behind, because they're gonna have to play catch-up.

Probably, but they've also spent a ton of money in the process of gaining that advantage.

That's the way it is, though. Sony spent like $10 or $12 million developing EverQuest, which is a huge amount for a game even today (it was developed in like 1997-1999, though). Now look at it. And it's not like Nintendo doesn't have that money to spend, either. In fact, aren't they privately owned? That way they can invest in this sort of long-term shit without having to deal with investor squabbles.

[SonofdonCD]

Why isn't Intel making and selling me 20 ghz processors yet? It's the future! It's inevitable! They need to stop fighting it; it's not going away.

The difference here is that it's actually POSSIBLE right now for Nintendo to give us Online gaming. I'm not a computer wiz, but I'd be surprised if 20 gHz computers were physically a possibility right now.

Nintendo never said that online gaming was stupid or that it will never be an option for them. They are merely adopting a "wait and see" approach. You said it yourself: online gaming is THE FUTURE.

That doesn't absolve them from any criticism. The fact remains that BOTH of their competition aren't just testing it out, but actively persuing Online gaming, much to the delight to the "Small userbase" that want it.

And that's my whole point, really (also one that you didn't seem to address). Nintendo is letting their customers go to their competition freely.

Does it also tell you that spending large sums of cash to appeal to a very small percentage of your market is stupid?

No, but it tells me that Nintendo doesn't want to invest their time, money or energy satisfying their entire customer base, loyal or potential. Like they say sometimes, "In order to make money, you got to spend it."

[Mamoscott]

The difference here is that it's actually POSSIBLE right now for Nintendo to give us Online gaming. I'm not a computer wiz, but I'd be surprised if 20 gHz computers were physically a possibility right now.

You completely missed my point. It's not about what is and isn't possible right now. It's about what is economically viable for the business and the consumer. Even if Intel could produce 20 ghz processors in a cost efficient way, there would still only be a very small market for them, so it's not worth the effort for them to do so at this point in time.

Yes, it's true that MS and Sony will probably be in a better position in the future when it comes to online gaming, but Nintendo is not going to rush something as huge as this just to keep up with its competitors. It's going to be a longterm battle, and the fact that Nintendo seems uninterested right now does not mean they're not in the process of developing something. Hell, I'm sure their execs are frothing at the mouth at the prospect of a cashcow like a Pokemon MMORPG. They just don't think now is the time for it.

And that's my whole point, really (also one that you didn't seem to address). Nintendo is letting their customers go to their competition freely. No, but it tells me that Nintendo doesn't want to invest their time, money or energy satisfying their entire customer base, loyal or potential. Like they say sometimes, "In order to make money, you got to spend it."

You mean, spending money like Sega did putting the Dreamcast online? That ended well.

[Damian79]

Anyway, basically what Nintendo is saying is, "the minute online console gaming blows up and becomes great and starts making money we will be there with a perfect online system and a perfect scheme and everyone will love us and we will take over the world once more". Not gonna happen.

Yeah, it isn't so much as Nintendo not wanting to go online rather than their investors not wanting to. Nintendo had a continuously updated (on a weekly basis) online gaming set up for the SNES, but it bombed and they lost a lot of money on it. The other part of the problem is that Japanese online gaming is non-existant. Being a Japanese Company, they will always see their core demographic being in Japan like MS is with America. Yes, it is stupid, but that is how businesses operate. They test things out on their home demographic before they overseas.

IMO if online console gaming is to evolve to a level where people are willing to pay for monthly upgrades, it would require current American devs to create something that is worth paying monthly for or the Europeans have to have a consolle of their own dedicated to online gaming. The reason why I say the Europeans will do better with online gaming is because they are far more inventive in terms of gameplay both online and offline than American devs. Saga of Ryzom is a ground breaking MMORPG, midnight nowhere is pushing the boundary where perversion is concerned, In memoriam is amazing as far as online murder mysteries are concerned. And so on and so forth. PC gaming scene in Europe>>>>> everywhere else.

[SonofdonCD]

You completely missed my point. It's not about what is and isn't possible right now. It's about what is economically viable for the business and the consumer. Even if Intel could produce 20 ghz processors in a cost efficient way, there would still only be a very small market for them, so it's not worth the effort for them to do so at this point in time.

That might be true, but these are two different markets here (upgrading hardware verses added functionality and features), so I don't see how it's relevant.

Yes, it's true that MS and Sony will probably be in a better position in the future when it comes to online gaming, but Nintendo is not going to rush something as huge as this just to keep up with its competitors. It's going to be a longterm battle, and the fact that Nintendo seems uninterested right now does not mean they're not in the process of developing something. Hell, I'm sure their execs are frothing at the mouth at the prospect of a cashcow like a Pokemon MMORPG. They just don't think now is the time for it.

I can understand where Nintendo is coming from. Money is always a big concern, especially for big businesses such as themselves. But that doesn't mean this decision is a smart one.

They are taking a risk, and a big one at that. No betting man would think Nintendo will have the upper hand come next gen in the online front. Like Diffx said, they will have a lot of catching up to do; not only on their part, but in the minds of gamers themselves.

You mean, spending money like Sega did putting the Dreamcast online? That ended well.

Difference is Sega didn't have the money to spend that Nintendo has. They realized this and went all out, hoping that it would pull them out of the situation they were in. So what if it didn't work; I at least admire them for trying.

[Mamoscott]

That might be true, but these are two different markets here (upgrading hardware verses added functionality and features), so I don't see how it's relevant.

It is completely relevant, because you can only offer a limited amount of added functionality and features before you have to upgrade hardware (or bandwidth or whatever). You don't think the fact that only a small percentage of U.S. households have upgraded to broadband internet connections is relevant? You don't think that affects a broadband-only service like Xbox Live (which eliminated millions of potential customers before it even launched) or the number of gamers playing online?

The markets are more similar than you think.

Difference is Sega didn't have the money to spend that Nintendo has. They realized this and went all out, hoping that it would pull them out of the situation they were in. So what if it didn't work; I at least admire them for trying.

I am sure Nintendo would much rather save its money than have your admiration and go bankrupt like Sega did.

[GameCynic]

Yes, i'm sure adding an online matching service to Mario Kart: DD is gonna make Nintendo break the piggy bank

[SonofdonCD]

It is completely relevant, because you can only offer a limited amount of added functionality and features before you have to upgrade hardware (or bandwidth or whatever). You don't think the fact that only a small percentage of U.S. households have upgraded to broadband internet connections is relevant? You don't think that affects a broadband-only service like Xbox Live (which eliminated millions of potential customers before it even launched) or the number of gamers playing online?

The markets are more similar than you think.

The motivations behind a customer buying a 20 gHz CPU vs getting a Online-enabled game are vastly different. The same as the companies that are releasing both different products.

That's why I didn't see your initial analogy relevant. The same principle can't always be applied in such a blanketed manner, especially in different markets. Besides, the PC market and video game market are hardly similar in general.

I am sure Nintendo would much rather save its money than have your admiration and go bankrupt like Sega did.

My point wasn't that I admire Sega and want Nintendo to go down in flames, much the same way. My point was that Sega didn't have the money to attempt to do what they did, and they did it anyway. Nintendo DOES have the money (at least comparatively), yet they don't.

[Rocca]

Shit, if they made F-Zero online...

Oh but their already is! Just insert your password in a php board and watch you get creamed by all the japs! hey nintendo, cheap resolution to online gameplay.