Xbox Live wasn't launched when the console launched... that didn't stop thousands of people from playing Halo using Gamespy. Plus - once Xbox released Live, its sales rose signifigantly... besides - they're a distant second to a console that also has online gaming available, so I don't see the point you're trying to make. If online gaming didn't mean anything, games like Unreal Tournament and Quake 3 Arena wouldn't have sold any copies.

Online gaming on the PS2 is not really a big deal either. There are a few hundred thousand people playing online, but out of the 40-50 million PS2 owners its a drop in the bucket.

Its not the reason for the PS2's success or the GameCube's struggles. Xbox has the best online gaming strategy, but all they have done is fall farther behind the PS2 so dumping a billion dollars on it would do nothing to help Nintendo do anything, but lose more money.

Unreal and Quake 3 didn't exactly break any sales records by the way. The main reason for the increase in Xbox console sales was the lower price and free pack in games.

I'm not saying there is no market for online gaming. Its just not big enough for a small company like Nintendo to go after this generation.

The biggest losers here are the gamers.

People don't care about LAN or connectivity the way they care about online gaming. SOCOM is the second biggest online game around and that is with Sony's relatively low Network Adapter penetration.

I want Nintendo to compete.
I want Nintendo to make the best games again.
I want to play Nintendo games online.

Nintendo is simply ignoring a growing market and they aren't winning enough new customers to their console to boot.

Kids don't grow up playing Nintendo anymore, they grow up with Playstation. There is a reason for that.

As broadband become more prevalent so will online gaming and Nintendo will be more irrelevant.

LAN and online gaming suck IMO.

I want 2-4 players and that's it. No one other than geeks has more friends than that who are in to gaming. And playing games with random losers (like those that post on most gaming sites like IGN) doesn't interest me at all.

Hell, I've been playing games since I was like five or six and when I get together with my friends, I want to go out to the clubs and pick up chicks, not sit around and play games.

Perhaps I've been lucky, but my experiences with online gaming have been overwhelmingly positive.

I was as skeptical as anyone before I actually gave it a shot for the first time last fall. The DVDTalk SOCOM clan was my virgin go-round and it got me hooked. Xbox Live is a significatly better online experience, IMO.

Most of the people I've encountered have been perfectly pleasant, normal folks who like to play games. I'm not playing Everquest fer chrissakes.

Live is perfect for me since due to college, graveyard shift at work and general growing up, I don't live in the same area as my friends, have the same schedule or even the same level of interest in gaming as I did when I was younger. I could never get together enough people or resources for LAN play even if I wanted to.

It's fantastic being able to play games against real competition when I get home at 3:30 a.m. MST.

Well here's my take on it, an individual perspective to be sure, but perhaps a different look at it.

When I bought RtCW for the PC and Medal of Honor (my two "big" PC purchases of the last two years, yay me ) I played through the single player for awhile and then I clicked a different button on the menu and boom, I was playing online with tons of people. In many ways it was better than having friends over to play with, though Mario Kart tournaments still win that one.

The point is, I didn't have to pay extra to play online. I mean, these games already cost $50, which in my opinion is highway robbery. Combine that with a limited amount of gaming time and I can't justify the cost to play online. So when MS or Sony or Nintendo offer online gameplay that is included in the price of the game, then of course I'm in.

Can any of you more technically savvy people explain why Xbox and PS2 require the yearly fee and PC games don't?

Make online gaming free, baby!

stoolie

Thats the problem for Nintendo.

Setting up an online gaming network is very expensive. One like Microsoft has is outrageously expensive. The only way it can be free is if millions of people are buying the online software for $50. With only a few hundred thousand gamers using it there is no way to make back the costs of the online service unless you charge a fee.

The $50 a year MS is charging for Xbox live is very cheap and there is no way its covering the cost of the service now. Microsoft's plan works though if in the next few years there are 10 million people using Xbox live. Then the $50 a year plus the money made on the game sales covers the cost of providing the online service.

Nintendo doesn't see the need to cater to a market that currently is only a half million or so strong. When the groundwork is better set up for online gaming to be successful then Nintendo will go after it. Right now its not worth the expense to bring in so few gamers. Its the other 40 million PS2 owners they need to find some way to win over.

Nintendo's problems aren't with hardware, its with finding software that more than just the hardcore Nintendo gamers want to play. They need to figure that out before the go after the online market.

Actually. it's debatable if they are in last in the US, but world wide they are in second. Since more games are played and developed around the world and not just in north america, one can easily derrive that the world market share is far more important than the US one.

Nintendo didn't embrace online gaming because it is not a profitable business. It is a proven loss. Microsoft, Sega... those names ring a bell. One of Sega's biggest downfalls was its inability to make online gaming profitable. Despite what gamers may think and want, Microsoft is losing money because of Xbox Live. Bless them for giving us the option of it though.

Nintendo has always stressed profitability over gamers needs. This is just another case. I'd rather have Nintendo make money and not go under then blow all their cash on an online system that the minority of gamers will use.

Maybe if you spent more time playing then you would find some cool gamers. A buddy and I went as far to create our own clan (bandofgamers.com) and we went from 3 or 4 people to about 30 awesome gamers with great attitudes. I am in clan matches for Ghost Recon and other clan members play clan matches for MA. We are now starting our RTCW team up. All of this is fun stuff with cool people and adds an enormous amount to the game. As I think I've posted in other threads, LIVE and GR have saved me a ton of money. I would much rather get online and play against 6 to 12 other people than play a game against the predictable AI that 99% of the games seem to have. This way the game never gets old because every HUMAN person thinks a little differently. I still like single player games but just explaining how much fun I find online gaming to be.

As far as the price to pay, $50 or even $70 a year is hardly a large investment. You not only get online play but you get free downloadable content as well. For anyone who buys several games a year $50 to $70 for a full year of LIVE should be nothing especially if you are like me and save a ton of money due to the longevity of the game going through the roof.

I suspect that Nintendo will go the route that Sega went before you know it. To be honest the only reason they are still in the console wars while Sega is on the sidelines is because Nintendo had a lot more money than Sega (IMO). MS and Sony may be giants above Nintendo but Nintendo had/has much more cash to burn than Sega ever dreamed of. This has kept them in the game but with the way things are going they could be a software only company before you know it.
I personally don’t like Sony’s plan although I did originally. It may be great for huge developers like EA because they have enough money to build their own gaming network but for the smaller developers suddenly online game isn’t even close to becoming a reality on the PS2. At least with Xbox Live they can put in the code and benefit from higher sales while MS handles the losses taken on the network. An even greater advantage IMO for LIVE is the SINGLE gamertag that sticks with you for the entire year. If you act like an A Hole online then your reputation is trashed and will be passed around from gamer to gamer. You can't just act like an idiot or do disconnects all the time and then hide from it by changing names as you can on Sony's network. This is a big deal to me and weeds out a lot of the bad gamers.

Well, I’ve stated how I see things. I know that about a year ago I saw things differently. I said I would never pay to play online but once I got into LIVE I realized that it actually saves me money on the extra games I would be buying AND the fun is well worth the small price to pay. Blowing up real people in GR and RTCW is way more fun than single player mode could ever be IMO.

You forget one big issue and that is the FUTURE of gaming. Both MS and Sony are investing in the future of gaming. This is something that Nintendo hasn't been too good at. Does the Bulky Disk Drive ring a bell? How about the 3D gaming glasses machine that bombed (forget the name at the moment)? Nintendo has made plenty of mistakes like Sega but just has more income from more sources to help take the blow of the financial loss.
I have YET to see a single person on this board make a crazy claim that MS is actually making money on LIVE. MS and Sony are both taking a certain amount of loss in return for a better chance for profits in the future. This is called INVESTING in the future instead of just investing for now. Sure, online gaming is only a drop in the bucket now but everyone knows that the world is going broadband. To think not would be like going back in time 2 or 3 years and saying that DVD was a waste of money because VHS is just fine. Just like DVDs, online gaming and broadband will become a part of a normal household more and more until almost everyone has broadband and most people (who care to) will be playing online. It is all about the future and MS is betting a LOT of cash on online gaming to play a big role. We all know it will play some role but the size of the role and how soon are the only questions.

Money was certainly part of it, but Sega died because of screwing over consumers 3 straight times (32X, Sega CD, and Sega Saturn). Before the DC they had launched 2 genesis add ons, and a crappy, underpowered system, that all died quickly and which they stopped supporting quickly. This killed consumer confidence, and doomed the DC before it's start (which sucked because it was a great system). Then the PS2 came out with it's huge hype machine and finished it off.

As for online gaming, providing it is another reason they died. They spent millions to set up Sega Net, and charged nothing for it (with the exception of the few who signed up for the Sega Net ISP rather than using their own). They simply didn't have the cash to do that, and neither does Nintendo right now when online gaming is a long way from being profitable.

I agree that $50 for the year is not all that much to gain all of the things you mentioned. However, $50 a year compared to free on the PC is a difference I haven't been able to reconcile yet.

stoolie

Man I can't argue with that. The 32X, Sega CD, and Saturn were all horrible choices made by Sega. Although I think their online strategy was brilliant I know that it was only brilliant for a company that could afford to take a huge loss for a good amount of time. Sega was not such a company and we see the result. I had a feeling for a good while that maybe Sega and MS would join forces during the creation of the DC and shortly after. Now we see that MS went their own way instead but if they would have gotten behind Sega then they could have made the DC a success IMO. That system was probably the best system I've owned as far as having great games from launch day forward. Anyway, good comments and I totally agree.

Especially considering you have games like Counter Strike, Medal Of Honor, Warcraft 3, and ofcourse the HOTTEST game right now Battlefield 1942!!!

Console games dont have what it takes to compete with Online Gaming on the PC IMO.

I agree. Online Gaming sucks. I hate playing against those loser maniacs who do nothing but play the game all day and know all the tricks and secrets and get my ass kicked by them.

1. Many that you list will be coming to consoles especailly on down the road a ways.
2. Console ONLINE gaming has just really started so do you really expect it to be perfect over night? I tried the PC online thing and didn't like it. One of my GR clan guys has been playing online for years and now spends 90% of his time playing Xbox LIVE. Let's face it, sports and racing games just don't feel right on the PC. (my opinion of course)
3. Anyone who has a problem with competition (like some of these people) being too stiff with console online has no idea how tough it can be with PC online gaming. People have every map memorized perfectly.

First post I agree with

In truth, the market has handled 3 consoles extremely well. I know we all thought that there wasn't room for 3, but I tend to think that there is, now.

Online gaming will only appeal to a small percentage of gamers, and there will always be a market for it, but decideing not to get into won't hurt anyone.

Second post I agree with.

If you don't like to play video games with your friends, then why do you want 2-4 players? Based on your preference to go out and pick up chicks when you're with friends, wouldn't it be better if you could play against people you aren't necessarily friends with? You're pretty much contradicting yourself - perhaps you simply just dislike playing games against anyone - for you, it's a personal thing you like to do by yourself. But then I don't know why you would single out online and Lan gaming as being teh suck. I also don't understand why everyone who posts on gaming message boards like IGN is a random loser and why you think that's who you would be playing against if you played online.

Nothing impresses the 'chicks' more than a guy who's been playing games since they were five or six and posts about it on message boards on an almost daily basis... Don't all of a sudden start acting like you're too cool for video games.

Has everyone here even tried Xbox Live or PS2 online?

The maniacs who play 24-7 are few and far between. Hell, they're probably just like some of us when we were kids without responsibilities.

Unless you live with 15 other guys who all happen to enjoy gaming, there is no better way of playing with lots of other people. This is especially true for most of us here. It just isn't feasible to have large groups of people together consistenly as an adult.

Personally, I'm sick of playing against the computer in tons of games and human competition/teamwork makes all the difference. For every jackass, there are 10 perfectly normal people who make the experience fun. Idiots can be voted out of games, the voice comm volume can be turned down or muted and you can host your own games with whatever rules you choose.

If you haven't given it a chance, why complain?

I like to play games with friends...occasionally. Its just not near the top of my favorite things to do with friends.

As for people on IGN and other boards being losers, if you read those forums and don't think most of the people that post their are losers I don't know what to say.

Why do I think most online gamers will be like them? The people that are most likely to be into online gaming are the hard core gamers that post about games online, and the vast majority of them are losers IMO. This is the only online gaming board I've every found that was even tolerable.

LOL! Sometimes your comments amaze me. Do you have LIVE? Have you played PS2 online? I have to agree with whoever it was above that said for every 1 punk you can find 10 normal gamers.
Only hardcore gamers play online? Get for real man. We aren't living in the 90's anymore. Whether you or anyone else likes it Online gaming will be come a bigger part of the gaming picture as years pass.
According to your logic I can just hear someone saying 5+ years ago that only geeks used the internet. More and more homes are getting broadband and it will be a big part of gaming IMO because it will also be a bigger part of the average family's living. As more people get broadband why wouldn't a gamer want to plug in the Cat5 cable and have a blast with buddies? I'm not saying this will happen overnight but everything seems to be pointing to broadband for the future. Even web sites are getting slower (due to added flash, etc.) for 56K users. Once people use broadband they have a VERY hard time going back to dial up and this opens up a huge door for online gaming to become more mainstream IMO.

But it's one of your favorite things to talk about since it seems like you post in this forum on a daily basis.

I don't read those forums, so I wouldn't know... you apparently do though. Why do you read those forums if they are full of losers? What does that say about you?

Ok... let me see if I got this right.

1. People most likely to be into online gaming = hard core gamers that post about online games
2. Vast majority of hard core gamers = losers
Therefore - people into online gaming = losers

Interesting indeed. I must be a big loser then. So must alot of us here at DVDTalk. Wow - I just remembered there was a whole Xbox Live thread where people posted their gamertags. There were alot of people too. Maybe you should use that list and make your own list of people who are losers and then you can write a book on being cool and use all of us as examples on how not to be cool.

Dude, no offense, but you sometimes you have too much to say about topics you know too little about. I'm sure I'm guilty of that too, but aren't we all?

The best $50 I've spent this year?

Battlefield 1942. Hands down. No question.

I have never gotten as much enjoyment out of a game (well, Street Fighter II in the arcades, maybe.) I play nearly every night. And I've never even tried the single player. I have been on a few servers with some bad players (team killers and all that.)

So I guess that makes me a loser? Riiiiiight. How will I sleep at night knowing that Josh Hinkle considers me and my clan and my friends from college who I still play with on Live "losers."

Fact is that I think Nintendo is right to not jump on the broadband wagon with this machine. Microsoft is taking the financial risk of laying a groundwork (and they have the money to do so.)

But I'm sure we will see some kind of built-in online strategy with their next machine.

I said multiplayer gaming with friends is near the top of my favorite things to do when I'm with my friends. Gaming is one of my favorite things to do when home by myself. It's a great time killer.

I don't read them on a regular basis. I skim over other sites once in a while for a good laugh. If you think we've had some lame fanboys here, you should check out ign or gamers.com (esp. the EGM forum there). It's a riot. Anyway, I'm not even registered to post on any other forums on the net besides this one.


Can't argue with that.

I come here because it's a great one stop site for info on Movies, DVDs, Games and Musics. Not because I enjoy the company.