Show Posts
1
TalkBack / RE:Editorial: Free NOA!
« on: January 18, 2005, 09:28:05 AM »
I disagree that they "burry" the concept, they simply state the facts, that it's a small market right now compared to the total userbase, therefore it's not really the "era of online gaming" and such. That is all I've heard them say, do you expect them to sit there and be like "YES! ONLINE GAMING IS SUPERPOPULAR! EVERYONE PLAYS ONLINE GAMES, WHY AREN'T YOU!? HEY KID, YOU WONT BE COOL IF YOU DON'T PLAY ONLINE GAMES YOU KNOW 
" or what? I mean give me a break. Just because Nintendo doesn't get on a soapbox to spout nonesense, doesn't mean they don't like online games, they've stated several times that it will be big sometime in the near future, just not *NOW*, and they have stated that they plan to implement it when they can do it *correctly* and not some half-assed approach that will bankrupt them, (like Microsoft's). Not everyone has MS's endless pot of gold to use. Also, the DS's capabilities proove that they're thinking of online, since the DS's projected lifecycle obviously crosses over with their estimation of when online games will be big, and keep in mind that an add-on in a handheld prooves to be a LOT more problematic then an add-on with a home console. Also, they only comment on online when they're asked about it, which is often, not "every chance they get" or whatever...
Also, I'm pretty sure if a company was planning a high profile title, that Nintendo would promote them. Sony backed up FFXI because it was assured success, not just because it was an online game. When a game is seen as valuable, thats when companies promote it. Nintendo would only lose money by promoting every single online project that crossed their desk. Before they waste advertising money they need to be sure the project is going to be a hit, and worth the expenditure.
And the idea about built-in V.S. add-on, well, it's all nice and pretty in theory, but in practice the numbers speak diffrently. The vast majority of Xbox owners are NOT Xbox Live customers, it's really only about 1-2% that subscribe, and this is with the most killer deal ever, only a yearly fee, I mean it's practically a steal and yet no one's buying. And keep in mind that in the real world, Microsoft cannot keep this up for long, their strategy is the same as in the software industry, to lure the consumer in, and then lock them into your platform, the stats say that Microsoft is losing money with Xbox Live, and that is incremental as the service grows, due to the fact that more users require more servers and more bandwith and such, the more the service scales, the less the pathetic yearly fee can possibly cover the expenditure, but hey, this is MS, they don't care if they lose a few million or so, as long as they're the leader in five or so years, then they can incrementally change their fee untill it's up to a monthly one. Assuming that such a system can be maintained long-term with good cash-flow is a pipe-dream. And companies that don't have 50+ billion dollars to burn would prefer to stay profitable. When Nintendo sees the numbers start to change, that's when they'll make their move, developers don't nessesarily look at if the system uses an add-on or not, but rather how common the add-on is in the homes of gamers. I mean as odd a comparison as this is, even with four ports, you still have to buy extra controllers, which can cost as much as the BBA, so it's not ridiculous to assume a consumer will buy extra devices after initial purchase, especially if the console+addon together are still priced low compared to the competition's offering. And as I said, if a bundle pack is used at launch, then that will promote growth also. The idea here is to promote online games without compromising your profit or marketshare, not to jump into every single fad that shows up. I mean believe me, I *love* online games, a lot, so this isn't a bias here, I'm simply stating what a cautious buisnessperson does in these situations. Also, supporting Sony's online strategy on one end, and then stating that ethernet needs to be built-in on the other, is somewhat contradictory, hehe. It doesn't matter if Nintendo is the last person to implement online, it matters if when the time comes, the others have lost lots of money in their online plans, and if Nintendo has remained profitable without having to lose anything, and made a perfect transition from offline to online, if that's the case, then Nintendo wins in the end and has the last word. Assuming that being the first to implement something makes one the winner isn't a wise philosophy.
P.S.: I wanted to say something in my other post and I had forgotten, so I'll say it here. About the whol fighting game thing, well, I'm not a classic fighting game fanatic, so I wouldnt really have a previous experience of what it was like "before", although I have extremely huge hands, the d-pad isnt *too* horrible, it does take a little adjusting from what I can tell. Also, a friend of mine who has been playing fighting games since the early SNES days and is an expert in the genre (who also has big hands), told me that it only took him a little while to really get the hang of it, although it was initially diffrent, after some time he was able to pull off all the moves that he could in other games successfully, and with optimal performance. I suppose one controller may be "more suited" to a fighting game, but that doesnt mean it's impossible to adjust to it. After all, I wouldnt say that Sony's controller is that good for games either. Many people say that the best fighting game controller was the Saturn's, with it's six face buttons and such. the four-button thing is carried over from having only four buttons in the SNES days, it's a habit. Learning the layout of another controller just takes a little while, so big deal. Also, if you hate it that much, that's what 3rd party controllers are for. For the person who mentioned SoulCalibur, I'd say get the arcade joystick they released, I'd imagine that would be better for *any* fighting game, and better than *any* controller out there for those kinds of games. Controllers are normally designed for the majority of titles, not the minority, rounding out the design so all games, even the extremely small genres, get a good layout sort of ruins the potential of the majority of titles having a more optimal layout. I'd say the only solution to this is, and has always been, get a 3rd party controller that fits the game genre. Then you'll have even better control.
/azalyn
" or what? I mean give me a break. Just because Nintendo doesn't get on a soapbox to spout nonesense, doesn't mean they don't like online games, they've stated several times that it will be big sometime in the near future, just not *NOW*, and they have stated that they plan to implement it when they can do it *correctly* and not some half-assed approach that will bankrupt them, (like Microsoft's). Not everyone has MS's endless pot of gold to use. Also, the DS's capabilities proove that they're thinking of online, since the DS's projected lifecycle obviously crosses over with their estimation of when online games will be big, and keep in mind that an add-on in a handheld prooves to be a LOT more problematic then an add-on with a home console. Also, they only comment on online when they're asked about it, which is often, not "every chance they get" or whatever...Also, I'm pretty sure if a company was planning a high profile title, that Nintendo would promote them. Sony backed up FFXI because it was assured success, not just because it was an online game. When a game is seen as valuable, thats when companies promote it. Nintendo would only lose money by promoting every single online project that crossed their desk. Before they waste advertising money they need to be sure the project is going to be a hit, and worth the expenditure.
And the idea about built-in V.S. add-on, well, it's all nice and pretty in theory, but in practice the numbers speak diffrently. The vast majority of Xbox owners are NOT Xbox Live customers, it's really only about 1-2% that subscribe, and this is with the most killer deal ever, only a yearly fee, I mean it's practically a steal and yet no one's buying. And keep in mind that in the real world, Microsoft cannot keep this up for long, their strategy is the same as in the software industry, to lure the consumer in, and then lock them into your platform, the stats say that Microsoft is losing money with Xbox Live, and that is incremental as the service grows, due to the fact that more users require more servers and more bandwith and such, the more the service scales, the less the pathetic yearly fee can possibly cover the expenditure, but hey, this is MS, they don't care if they lose a few million or so, as long as they're the leader in five or so years, then they can incrementally change their fee untill it's up to a monthly one. Assuming that such a system can be maintained long-term with good cash-flow is a pipe-dream. And companies that don't have 50+ billion dollars to burn would prefer to stay profitable. When Nintendo sees the numbers start to change, that's when they'll make their move, developers don't nessesarily look at if the system uses an add-on or not, but rather how common the add-on is in the homes of gamers. I mean as odd a comparison as this is, even with four ports, you still have to buy extra controllers, which can cost as much as the BBA, so it's not ridiculous to assume a consumer will buy extra devices after initial purchase, especially if the console+addon together are still priced low compared to the competition's offering. And as I said, if a bundle pack is used at launch, then that will promote growth also. The idea here is to promote online games without compromising your profit or marketshare, not to jump into every single fad that shows up. I mean believe me, I *love* online games, a lot, so this isn't a bias here, I'm simply stating what a cautious buisnessperson does in these situations. Also, supporting Sony's online strategy on one end, and then stating that ethernet needs to be built-in on the other, is somewhat contradictory, hehe. It doesn't matter if Nintendo is the last person to implement online, it matters if when the time comes, the others have lost lots of money in their online plans, and if Nintendo has remained profitable without having to lose anything, and made a perfect transition from offline to online, if that's the case, then Nintendo wins in the end and has the last word. Assuming that being the first to implement something makes one the winner isn't a wise philosophy.
P.S.: I wanted to say something in my other post and I had forgotten, so I'll say it here. About the whol fighting game thing, well, I'm not a classic fighting game fanatic, so I wouldnt really have a previous experience of what it was like "before", although I have extremely huge hands, the d-pad isnt *too* horrible, it does take a little adjusting from what I can tell. Also, a friend of mine who has been playing fighting games since the early SNES days and is an expert in the genre (who also has big hands), told me that it only took him a little while to really get the hang of it, although it was initially diffrent, after some time he was able to pull off all the moves that he could in other games successfully, and with optimal performance. I suppose one controller may be "more suited" to a fighting game, but that doesnt mean it's impossible to adjust to it. After all, I wouldnt say that Sony's controller is that good for games either. Many people say that the best fighting game controller was the Saturn's, with it's six face buttons and such. the four-button thing is carried over from having only four buttons in the SNES days, it's a habit. Learning the layout of another controller just takes a little while, so big deal. Also, if you hate it that much, that's what 3rd party controllers are for. For the person who mentioned SoulCalibur, I'd say get the arcade joystick they released, I'd imagine that would be better for *any* fighting game, and better than *any* controller out there for those kinds of games. Controllers are normally designed for the majority of titles, not the minority, rounding out the design so all games, even the extremely small genres, get a good layout sort of ruins the potential of the majority of titles having a more optimal layout. I'd say the only solution to this is, and has always been, get a 3rd party controller that fits the game genre. Then you'll have even better control.
/azalyn
