Messages

1

TalkBack / RE:Nintendo Patents GBA Emulation

« on: April 30, 2004, 06:12:28 AM »

I think you guys (PGC) sort of misreported this one. It's still a BS patent, but it's more specific than you think. The patent reads, "A software emulator for emulating a handheld video game platform such as GAME BOY.RTM., GAME BOY COLOR.RTM. and/or GAME BOY ADVANCE.RTM. on a low-capability target platform (e.g., a seat-back display for airline or train use, a personal digital assistant, a cell phone) uses a number of features and optimizations to provide high quality graphics and sound that nearly duplicates the game playing experience on the native platform."

You'll notice it's referring to emulating ANY handheld game (this actually extends BEYOND Gameboy and into the realm of NGPC, Game Gear, etc.), but only on a "low-capability target platform (e.g., a seat-back display for airline or train use, a personal digital assistant, a cell phone)." So emulating handheld games on a "high-capability" platform (Gamecube, PC, etc.) would still be legal, although the "low-capability" definition is FAR too subjective and should never have been allowed through the patent process.

You'll also notice this patent was filed back in 2000, so while it conveniently applies to emulators on the Zodiac, it was good foresight on Nintendo's part, not hindsight, that allowed that to happen.

2

TalkBack / RE:Iwata Discusses Nintendo's Next Console

« on: April 12, 2004, 11:19:01 AM »

What disappoints me is that while Nintendo is experimenting with new features that hopefully enhance the gameplay experience they ignore a huge feature that people are already asking for: online gaming. They are letting their business mentality cloud their vision. If they would just allow the public to run game servers they would instantly be one step ahead of Microsoft and Sony and they would minimize the necessary financial commitment in the process.

3

TalkBack / Pay-to-Play Online Madden?

« on: May 08, 2003, 08:40:48 AM »

I think you misunderstand--only a handful of console owners need to be running PC servers. The efforts of the few benefit the many. This has been shown to balance out very well with other games. There are always more servers than there are players to play on them. 99% of PC game players don't bother setting up servers unless they are playing together on a LAN.

As far as dumbing it down to be easy to use, this has been done already too. Take Unreal Tournament for example. If you run a public server it will show up on the list inside the game. Each server, by default, broadcasts its presence and will be automatically added to a list of game servers. It's just up to the user to pick a server (the game can even pick one automatically) and play. This is no different than something you'd currently see with online console games.

The DIFFERENCE here is that console publishers right now are trying to do it all! They are trying to house enough servers to hold everyone in the United States (that's a crapload of servers, and a crapload of hosting fees), AND in many cases they are trying to host player rankings, user accounts--all sorts of crazy stuff.

If you want to offer player rankings then go ahead and charge for it, but if you just talking simple multiplayer, Keep It Simple, Stupid.

4

TalkBack / Pay-to-Play Online Madden?

« on: May 07, 2003, 06:51:19 PM »

What totally bugs me is that they continue to look at online play as a long-term obligation. If that were true 90% of the PC's online-capable games would NOT have online play at all, but on the contrary most of them offer it for free! The problem is, in most cases, ONLINE PLAY ITSELF IS NOT A WAY TO MAKE MONEY. Especially for sports games. There is NO reason for someone to pay to play on the publisher's server when they could play on a private one for free! The equation is so damn easy it almost makes me POP every time I hear them whining about how it's not making enough money. Web page ad revenues!?!?!?!?! What the heck are these people trying to do to gaming? Here's the equation:

online play + servers hosted by the public = more people want to play your game + no long term obligation to the publisher

This is not brain surgery.

5

TalkBack / Teens Still Controlling Game Market

« on: March 06, 2003, 05:38:19 AM »

You can't deny Nintendo is missing a certain type of gamer with the Gamecube though. And I don't think it's bound by age, which is why you'll see 15 year olds that feel the same way 25 year olds do. (I meant to change my other post to say "mature image" instead of "older demographic".) What people commonly refer to as "mature" should more accurately be stated as "masculine". These guys want masculine games, and I think sports are the backbone of that. Sports gamers have little reason to buy a Gamecube, especially with Sega Sports dropping their support.

I don't think it's all Nintendo's fault this happened. They haven't been getting as many ports as the XBox (World Series Baseball comes to mind), and none of the developers had online features for GC last year, even though they probably had development modems at their disposal. But then again Nintendo hasn't done much to change the sports image ever since their first effort with that basketball game. If they want to make themselves a sports machine it looks like they're going to have to make the games themselves, and make them good, like Sega did back with the Genesis. But with three consoles competing, and the other two kicking your butt sports-wise, things don't look promising for a Nintendo sports campaign.

6

TalkBack / Teens Still Controlling Game Market

« on: March 05, 2003, 05:52:37 PM »

What this demonstrates is that the bandwagon male insecurity issues that exist on a small scale, say, at school, also exist on a large scale. The same way guys (and by guys I mean any male in Junior High or beyond) use every means possible to accentuate their manliness--cars with bigass stereos, lewd remarks about "the ladies", chats about the latest episode of "The Man Show"--so will they consider their manliness when they choose their videogame system. This has been true ever since the Genesis, back when they were enticing people with their superious lineup of sports games.

That being said I think having the best sports lineup is the key to winning over that older demographic. Sports games attract the beer drinkers, the Deer Hunter fans, and the boys who want to be like them. As much as we all want to think it's the purple console, or the cutesy Nintendo games, it's not. Consider the original Playstation. The name itself conjures insanely kiddie images. When it was released it was going up against a nearly identical system, the Saturn, which had a more mature name, a BLACK console color (instead of the Nintendo-ish gray of the PS), not to mention the SEGA brand. But what happened? Somehow Sony became the sports king, and now they are THE king, sales-wise.

7

TalkBack / Metal Gear Solid on GameCube - CONFIRMED

« on: March 01, 2003, 07:39:43 AM »

You're right, now I'm even more peeved!

8

TalkBack / Metal Gear Solid on GameCube - CONFIRMED

« on: February 28, 2003, 05:07:49 PM »

But wouldn't ANY change from Konami be a good one? This is a weak one. Maybe if Konami had a NEW game that it was releasing on the Gamecube I wouldn't see it this way.

The fact that it's probably (we don't know yet) a remake tells me they are reluctant to commit any resources in this direction. In return for their half-hearted efforts they will probably get mediocre sales. Let's wait and see what kind of game they churn out. If it's a new game of some sort, there may be hope. If it's a port of the XBox / PS2 version: bad news, very bad. The PS2 version has been on the budget rack for ages. They expect people to get excited about it now? I don't think so. Game ships, sales stink, Konami drops the GC and never looks back.

9

TalkBack / Metal Gear Solid on GameCube - CONFIRMED

« on: February 28, 2003, 03:44:36 PM »

I heard Konami will be using this game as the test to see if the Gamecube is worth bothering with. To me that has bad news written all over it. I'm pissed off that they think they can totally diss the Gamecube for more than a year and then suddenly release a remixed game and expect it to sell. Why the sudden interest in Gamecube? Sounds like someone lobbied, finally got their way, but was also given an ultimatum: sell or else. And most likely, since they are essentially giving us a rehash of some older game, this new Metal Gear will not sell as well as it needs to. It's too dang late! If it comes even close to tanking, kiss all future Konami games goodbye. So I'm telling you my prediction right now: BAD NEWS.

Their only hope for high sales is if they make a completely ground-up amazing remake like RE. But did THAT game even sell very well?

Major 3rd parties refuse to give Gamecube the same dignity they give the XBox. It's been that way since day one and they are trying to make us believe it had to do with their marketing forecasts when most likely it had to do with the cash MS stuffed in their pocket. Amazing how that can alter your forecasts.

10

TalkBack / Nintendo down for the count? Not even close.

« on: February 26, 2003, 07:21:22 AM »

Rick the only disagreement I have is that it WOULD be nice if all my friends had a Gamecube instead of a PS2. Community is a great part of playing videogames and you lose that if your friends have a different system. You need people to play with and against!

Jonathan, I agree with you on the marketing part. I am *really* glad to hear that Nintendo is making the most money, but if their userbase isn't growing then what will keep them in the game in years to come? I think Nintendo is doing a bangup job with the games and the hardware, but I, like you, am disappointed with their inability to attract as much 3rd party support. One of the many types of games I like are Sega's sports games and I was very disappointed to see that they would not be returning this year.

Another problem I see is online multiplayer: the Nintendo's support for it is a joke. Most serious online players are going to look to the XBox (and the PC of course) if they are smart. Nintendo can say what they want about it not being a viable moneymaker but really they are just afraid of doing something new. The truth is that online multiplayer (in the case of most games) is actually a pretty cheap thing to do, relatively speaking. MS has gone the pricey route with elaborate servers, etc., but even that has only incurred a small monthly fee. When is someone going to allow people to run independent PC-based servers for console games? It works for PC games and it will work for console games as well. That would reduce Nintendo's maintenance cost to almost nothing.

In short, Nintendo seems a distant third in being "future proof" with the Gamecube.