Nintendo online plans?

[D-Side]

Aren't Nintendo losing customers everytime they overlook online services? Nintendo are losing a lot of custom.

[Monkichi 2.0]

It's not about profit, it's about allowing for consumer choice. Nintendo are dismissing a service that is appealing to certain sections of the gaming community. And 500k plus Live users is not small potatoes financially, despite the beliefs of Nintendo loyalists.

It is really as those Live users would probably buy the game anyway, plus they don't all buy the same games.

[emjay2kay]

Yes but I think nintendo's brand power alone would be able to counter this, how many people wouldnt want to play an online version of Pokemon, Mario Kart, Mario Party, Advance/Cube Wars, Zelda, animal crossing, f-zero, starfox, pikmin. If nintendo released only one of those games online and they had a online structure like Microsoft and Sony (which, as you said, most people will be aware of) it would be enough, I think, to persuade people over.

Personally, I'd shit myself laughing if those games were online. I'd be in heaven.

But if those games on there own aren't enough to interest people now, then who's to say those same people will become suddenly interested if those "gay/childish" games go online?

It could be possible that Nintendo is hoping that everyone who does like those games, and thus probably already has a GC/GC2, that a high proportion of them will go online. So, whle they may only have 10% of the overall online market, 50% of all GameCube owners are online, which would probably work for them I guess. (Did that make sense?)

[Monkichi 2.0]

Nintendo can survive on it's big hits and fan base for now, they're simply waiting for Sony and Microsoft to do all the donkey work. The Live network is just a first attempt, Xbox2 will bring with it an improved service and the next step in online gaming, as will Sony's next venture. Once online gaming is established and all the expensive research has been undertaken and more people hook up to broadband then Nintendo just needs to make their games online to cash in.

[D-Side]

It is really as those Live users would probably buy the game anyway, plus they don't all buy the same games.

Perhaps, but there again, not all Live games are bolstered by an engaging one player game.

[D-Side]

expensive research

Come again?

[ryanski]

Aren't Nintendo losing customers everytime they overlook online services? Nintendo are losing a lot of custom.

Totally agree.

[Monkichi 2.0]

Come again?

You don't think it costs money to implement an online strategy? It's not a random process, a lot of market research and other things need to be kicked into gear to get it running. Microsoft are loosing money over this as I type, yet they are paving the way for online console gaming. By the time Nintendo comes along with its online strategy they will be reaping the benefits of Microsoft's work.

[TheSlugFormerlyKnownAsNap]

Business-wise it makes sense for Nintendo not to jump into online gaming, but it's bad service towards their customers. On the other hand, who knows what enormous piles of cash they would have made with a 56k6 compatible Pokemon game?

And indeed, it might make people taking the other options more seriously when shopping for a new console.

'Can it play DVD's?'

- 'No, but these two can.'

'Can I play online?'

- 'No, but these two can.'

'I'll take it!'

[Ebisumaru]

'Can it play DVD's?'

- 'No, but these two can.'

'Can I play online?'

- 'No, but these two can.'

'I'll take it!'

I must apologise for being stuck in some crazy timewarp then, where I care about the games.

Although I sadly see where you're coming from the view of your average punter.

[Major Britten]

But what about when DVD recorders come down in price? Nobody will care then if their console plays DVDs or not.

[TheSlugFormerlyKnownAsNap]

But what about when DVD recorders come down in price? Nobody will care then if their console plays DVDs or not.

They still do. It's a feature. People love features, especially if they feel they get them for free. Not including DVD was a mistake of Nintendo this last gen, I think they even realise that themselves. Whether not including online-functionality was a mistake, I'm not sure. While online gaming hasn't produced enormous mountains of cash for Microsoft or Sony yet, the finest gaming moments I've experienced the last year were almost all online. So as a gamer I would feel very dissatisfied if I only had a GameCube and couldn't join in on the fun. And any gaming company has to keep it's customers happy I think.

[Major Britten]

They still do. It's a feature. People love features, especially if they feel they get them for free. Not including DVD was a mistake of Nintendo this last gen, I think they even realise that themselves.

But I think Nintendo would be more worried about piracy than features, and this is one area the gamecube has beaten both the xbox and PS2. And nintendo would lose a lot more money through piracy than customers that buy their machine only to play movies (and not nintendo's software)

[D-Side]

You don't think it costs money to implement an online strategy? It's not a random process, a lot of market research and other things need to be kicked into gear to get it running. Microsoft are loosing money over this as I type, yet they are paving the way for online console gaming. By the time Nintendo comes along with its online strategy they will be reaping the benefits of Microsoft's work.

You said research, not market research. As far as I am aware, MS and Sony are both using common components and standards, protocols and services pioneered by the PC, so the research costs are minimal.

BTW, by the time Nintendo 'comes along' with it's online strategy, reaping the benefits of Sony and MS's forward thinking attitude, I'm sure we'll all be well past it, as will they. We'll all be sitting in our favourite arm chair, smoking Holborn's, trying not to shit ourselves.

[amanset]

You don't think it costs money to implement an online strategy? It's not a random process, a lot of market research and other things need to be kicked into gear to get it running. Microsoft are loosing money over this as I type, yet they are paving the way for online console gaming. By the time Nintendo comes along with its online strategy they will be reaping the benefits of Microsoft's work.

A bit like the stereotype of Japanese/American business development. The Americans do the hard work, developing and implementing, then the Japanese come along and improve upon that and reaping the financial benefits.

[Jack]

Does anyone remember when Nintendo announced they'd be working with GameSpy for any online ventures?

[Major Britten]

Does anyone remember when Nintendo announced they'd be working with GameSpy for any online ventures?

That was a while back but I can remember it. Also was it Nintendo or Sony that signed a deal with AOL and Netscape?

[kensei]

The corner they have backed themselves into means Nintendo are going to have to get online soon. They really can't wait much longer. If they stand up in five years time at E3 and go "Ta-Da!! Gamecube2! ONLINE!! What d'ya think?" Everyone is going to greet it with the world's loudest "meh". It's being done right now very competently by Microsoft, and, well just being done by Sony.

Nobody but the most hardcore of Nintendo followers is going to be bothered about Nintendo going online if they don't hurry themselves into gear. People will be enjoying the other services far too much to be buggering about with this new one. Better to get in there now whle the market is still fairly open.

I don't see why. Nintendo have called this right. Net play gets a lot of hype, but the numbers are pitful vs installed user base. Microsoft and Sony can afford to piss money away on it for kudos but Ninetndo would be teh do0med if they didn't make regular profit.

Live style play will only truly take off in the next hardware cycle. Everything basically resets in each cycle so branding is all very well btut if Nintendo had great online games then it won't matter.

But then Nintendo might not bother. Who knows with them?

[dan_tm]

Yes but arent Microsoft losing money everytime they get a live customer at the moment? Microsoft are losing a lot of money.

How would that work?

Yes, I totally agree that Microsoft are losing money on creating the Xbox, they loose a hell of a lot on every one they sell.

But on Live they are making their money back. The initially shelled out for the design/research, setting up the servers and marketing, but for every Live pack they sell they are slowly making their money back.

Last time I remember any statistics from Microsoft there were 800,000+ subscribers, wholesaling their packs to shops at probably ~£20 thats about £16,000,000 they have collected, minus the initial charges.

Although I have absolutely no idea how much it has cost them to set up and advertise the service.

[Major Britten]

How would that work?

Yes, I totally agree that Microsoft are losing money on creating the Xbox, they loose a hell of a lot on every one they sell.

But on Live they are making their money back. The initially shelled out for the design/research, setting up the servers and marketing, but for every Live pack they sell they are slowly making their money back.

Last time I remember any statistics from Microsoft there were 800,000+ subscribers, wholesaling their packs to shops at probably ~£20 thats about £16,000,000 they have collected, minus the initial charges.

Although I have absolutely no idea how much it has cost them to set up and advertise the service.

Future advertising and paying money to keep the servers going

[pulsemyne]

while this is likely to be complete crap they did get one thing correct. Chusoft recently announced an online RPG for the GC that uses your home system as the server thus cutting the cost. Wierd that chusoft would think of this and noone else has bothered?

[Mr Spew]

Yes but arent Microsoft losing money everytime they get a live customer at the moment? Microsoft are losing a lot of money.

As noted above, the wholesale price is £20 (ish), so let's say they're making at least £10 on each pack. That's £8 million.

Now think about all the people who have LIVE, who will now buy Xbox games that have LIVE with them, or be more encouraged because they can play them on LIVE...

It all adds up.

[MK-1601]

It's not about profit, it's about allowing for consumer choice. Nintendo are dismissing a service that is appealing to certain sections of the gaming community. And 500k plus Live users is not small potatoes financially, despite the beliefs of Nintendo loyalists.

Nintendo's problem is this: they want to offer online functionality in their core franchises (Mario, Zelda, F-Zero, Pokemon, whatever) but they are strongly opposed to having features in these games that only a minority of users could access. (Assuming that online play would be more central to the experience than 'gimmick' features like GBA-GC link.)

We are of course only talking about Nintendo first and second party games. The option is already there for third party publishers, who have (mostly) decided not to take it yet. This is understandable, as there isn't much of a userbase (due to no killer app to shift BBAs), and no huge marketing kickbacks being offered by Nintendo to grow support artificially.

[whohe]

I want that headset just for the sexy case!

That's a bluetooth headset.

[whohe]

Oh, and it's available for "only" £80.

Here

Clearly the entire thing is an April Fool.

[TheSlugFormerlyKnownAsNap]

I think Ubisoft has the best way of developing online games at the moment: a high quality singleplayer experience with kick-ass multiplayer components. Ghost Recon, Rainbow Six and Splinter Cell all offer this. Nintendo could reap the benefits of this by offering an online architecture and let the developers do the hard stuff.

[Halo]

Curious how everyone is stating that Nintendo are losing customers due to the lack of online gaming... yet the DC was the first for online gaming - it was avaliable for everyone too - and it didn't stop it failing.

Online gaming is overstated... not exactly a complicated concept. The PS2 barely has online gaming in Europe yet that's not affecting the brand much is it?

[pretentious_helvetica]

Animal Crossing should of been online.... Animal Crossing 2 being online? Yes, yes please. Nintendo should of jumped on the online bandwagon ages ago. It's a pity really because the Gamecube can take either narrowband or broadband adapters... I know there's still people out there who can't afford/can't get broadband so this was a good move. PSO? Only one online title? Doh.

Sven ;[)~

[Alex W.]

Didn't some analyst group recently find out that console games with online features made some £1Bn for publishers last year?

[MK-1601]

Nintendo could reap the benefits of this by offering an online architecture and let the developers do the hard stuff.

This is what they're offering now.

This shows that there needs to be demand generated for online console gaming, and Nintendo don't seem to consider it beneficial (at the moment) to generate this demand. If they were wholly focussed on the US market, and didn't have quality first party software available, then they might have been more pro-active on this.

A shame, but I'm not entirely convinced that online console gaming ever will be a mainstream success.