|
Nintendo Comments on Online Strategy
From USAToday:
http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/20...e-debate_x.htm Online game strategy splits industry LOS ANGELES (Reuters) — It's a karaoke machine and a video conferencing center, a wireless jukebox and a DVD player. The latest and greatest gadget in home entertainment? No, just the well-worn video game console your kids already have in the living room. In the turf war being fought to control space in the living room of the future, rivals Sony and Microsoft have made it clear that the current generation of game consoles were meant to be Trojan horses. The real pay-off would come when the machines were connected to a network. Now, as both companies unveil the Internet-based services expected to be the next big thing for the $30 billion games business, sharp differences over their strategies have emerged along with a debate about how much consumers will be willing to pay for such online offerings. Microsoft has bet big on its Xbox Live online service, unveiling new features and functions this month. It aims to lure users away from Sony's top-selling PlayStation 2 console and steal growth from Nintendo's trailing GameCube. At stake is an early foothold in what many believe to be the future of gaming — the ability to sell, deliver and update games online without game discs, packaging or retail space. Last week, Sony upstaged Microsoft by announcing that the No. 1 game publisher, Electronic Arts, would roll out online versions of its popular sports games exclusively for the PlayStation 2, or PS2. Nintendo says its two larger rivals have staked too much on online games without thinking through the costs for consumers. "I don't think its reasonable to make someone pay for a game and then make them prepare a network connection and charge a monthly fee," Satoru Iwata, president of Nintendo, told Reuters recently. Doug Lowenstein, president of the Interactive Digital Software Association, the trade group representing game publishers, agreed: "Many potential online gamers are continuing to resist paying to play online." Closed network, open network Xbox Live, which launched last fall, is a networked system managed by Microsoft with the software giant maintaining passwords, e-mail addresses and user information. Subscribers pay about $50 a year. Sony, on the other hand, has opted for an open system that lets game publishers design and manage their own online services and decide whether to charge customers. In allying with Sony, Electronic Arts said it wanted greater control over its online network and user information than Microsoft offered and said it wanted to use online games to help driving sales of its existing blockbusters like Madden NFL and Harry Potter. "At the end of the day, it's a retail sales multiplier," said Frank Gibeau, senior vice president of marketing at Electronic Arts. EA, which for a long time separated its online business from its core games unit on its balance sheet, and at one time had hopes of a spin-off for the Internet division, consolidated the units earlier this year, conceding that EA.com would not reach profitability as fast as was hoped. Vivendi Universal Games, which has largely shied away from online games, said it had some of the same concerns about Microsoft's plans for Xbox Live. "I actually share the perspective that EA has to a large extent," Luc Vanhal, president of North American operations at VU Games, told Reuters. "Why would I be handing that asset over to Microsoft with nothing in exchange for it?" Meanwhile, Nintendo's Iwata said his company was working on a service that would not require users to cough up regular fees for games. "In the near future we are hoping to announce something that addresses this issue," he told Reuters. Nintendo's GameCube sells for $150 and has a separate add-on for connecting to networks or the Internet. While the $180 Xbox comes with a port ready to be connected to high-speed Internet access, it had always been a $40 add-on option for Sony's PS2. But this week Sony said it would introduce a new redesigned PS2 in June with network capability for $200. |
I wonder if he's talking about the LAN system that Mario Kart's going to use. I think Nintendo has made it abundantly clear that, at least in this generation, they're not going to enter into online gaming. Even with users paying a monthly fee, it's way too expensive to setup, especially with their user base. And if they don't want to charge, what are they going to do?
|
no idea
I think from a business perspective Nintendo has the right idea. They really don't have the money (i have no idea really, just speculating) to set up a network. If it comes to a choice develop a network or develop more games/consoles I vote for the games. I am really glad they do not have SEGAs penchant for pursuing every little new technology. but they do need to plan for the future... |
This article isn't really about Nintendo as the thread title suggests. :)
I personally think Nintendo is stupid for not pushing for online gaming. They sit on their thumbs and then the competition walks all over them - it's been the story of their lives for the past 8 years or so. I guess it's smart of them at the same time because their fanbase doesn't seem to be the type interested in online gaming. Another thing... I don't know if this will be news or not on the forum since I didn't do a search... I have an insider tip that the Xbox Live service will be 6 bucks per month after the initial subscription runs out. That's not bad. Better than the 9 or 10 bucks most people were expecting. |
Originally posted by Trigger Another thing... I don't know if this will be news or not on the forum since I didn't do a search... I have an insider tip that the Xbox Live service will be 6 bucks per month after the initial subscription runs out. That's not bad. Better than the 9 or 10 bucks most people were expecting. I still rarely game online with my Xbox. I play online on my computer nearly every night. So it doesn't really matter to me that my PS2 and GC aren't online. It's a nice feature of the Xbox, but not a huge selling point to me. |
I was hoping I wouldn't have to ask, but I guess everybody else knows... What exactly is LAN? Local Area Network possibly? Can anyone take advantage of this, is it run through a phoeline, is it expensive, require a broadband modem, etc???
|
Yeah - I hadn't heard anything they officially announced... a friend inside MS told me about their pricing plans for the future.
|
Originally posted by Trigger I have an insider tip that the Xbox Live service will be 6 bucks per month after the initial subscription runs out. Xbox Live one year renewal/subscription - $49.99 Xbox Live monthly rate - $5.99 Xbox Live Voice Communicator - $29.99 Xbox Live Starter Kit - $69.99 |
Originally posted by IIG I was hoping I wouldn't have to ask, but I guess everybody else knows... What exactly is LAN? Local Area Network possibly? Can anyone take advantage of this, is it run through a phoeline, is it expensive, require a broadband modem, etc??? |
Originally posted by ctyner No insider tips necessary. Microsoft has already announced what the pricing will be, starting this Fall. Xbox Live one year renewal/subscription - $49.99 Xbox Live monthly rate - $5.99 Xbox Live Voice Communicator - $29.99 Xbox Live Starter Kit - $69.99 |
I think from a business perspective Nintendo has the right idea. They really don't have the money (i have no idea really, just speculating) to set up a network. If it comes to a choice develop a network or develop more games/consoles I vote for the games. I am really glad they do not have SEGAs penchant for pursuing every little new technology. I hate to say it but at least Sega had balls, maybe not as much business sense as Nintendo, but they knew that in order to be successful in business sometimes you need to take risks, their risks just didn't work out. Nintendo has become an aging dinosaur that refuses to change. Let's hope they get a more "new millenium" mindset :) |
Originally posted by FalconH10 This is the same thinking that got them in trouble with the N64. I hate to say it but at least Sega had balls, maybe not as much business sense as Nintendo, but they knew that in order to be successful in business sometimes you need to take risks, their risks just didn't work out. Nintendo has become an aging dinosaur that refuses to change. Let's hope they get a more "new millenium" mindset :) SEGA may have had balls but that sure doesn't help them now. They pushed too much too fast and alienated their fan base. I am glad that Nintendo is not doing that. |
Originally posted by IIG I was hoping I wouldn't have to ask, but I guess everybody else knows... What exactly is LAN? Local Area Network possibly? Can anyone take advantage of this, is it run through a phoeline, is it expensive, require a broadband modem, etc??? But even that brings up the question of how are you going to play on the internet? MS has X-Box live to match up games. Sony let's the developer handle the matching portion. If you are playing over the internet you still need a way to match up the games so you can find each other. I haven't played anything on the PS2, but MS is very good at this since they have run an online gaming service before X-Box Live. The hard drive also gives an advantage to the X-Box since it lets MS update the service. They knew they wouldn't get things right the first time, so now they can update the clients and gradually test out new features. In the case of the PS2 the developer has one chance to get it right. This results in a lot of money down the drain on failed projects during the learning curve. |
Nintendo's making the right move. They simply don't have the money to set up an X-box live network. MS will lose millions on Live this generation, and Nintendo can't afford to do that.
They could do peer to peer connections though, which would be a way for them to get in the online gaming arena at least a little bit with out investing much money (other than what it costs to incorporate into some of their first party games). |
Either this morning or yesterday CNBC reported that Nintendo profits plunged 36% due to competion from MS. All MS has to do is eliminate Nintendo and turn it into an all software company like Sega to succeed in this generation.
|
How did the article attribute the 36% loss of profit to competition from MS?
|
Yeah, I'd be interested to hear that logic. Nintendo's sales drop is much more likely do to Sony continuing to rule the console world IMO.
|
I think everyone here is forgetting that online gaming sucks.
|
Originally posted by Breakfast with Girls I think everyone here is forgetting that online gaming sucks. |
Originally posted by Breakfast with Girls I think everyone here is forgetting that online gaming sucks. |
Originally posted by darkside I haven't forgot that. I can't think of a worse way to play games than online with a bunch of cheaters and crybabies that turn of their consoles when they start to lose. I've been playing games online for 8 years now and I love it... there's nothing like it. The first time I played against other people over the phone cables was the single most exciting time I've ever had with a video game. |
My first online gaming experience was playing HERETIC over phone modem with my then girlfriend in 1996.
|
Originally posted by Josh Hinkle Nintendo's making the right move. They simply don't have the money to set up an X-box live network. MS will lose millions on Live this generation, and Nintendo can't afford to do that. They could do peer to peer connections though, which would be a way for them to get in the online gaming arena at least a little bit with out investing much money (other than what it costs to incorporate into some of their first party games). They are in last place and falling. Their market share has consistently decreased for the last decade. How can it be the right decision to be the only company to have no online plan and limit gaming options? It isn't a billion dollar affair to include basic P2P software in games and to optimize the content for that. If they can include LAN play or GBA-GCN "connectivity," they can support very basic online gaming. I don't think Gamespy or Battle.net are financial blackholes... Most Xbox Live gaming from what I've experienced is a P2P situation with individual Xbox owners hosting the games. Nintendo didn't embrace online gaming because they are out of touch. |
Originally posted by Trigger Yeah, it's much better to invite the cheaters and crybabies over to your house Nintendo's problems have nothing to do with online gaming. Its just the fact they can't shake the kiddie image for their console and the 15-25 audience that is so important would rather play violent games. Mario is just not drawing in the gamers the way it once did. Grand Theft Auto and Halo have much more to do with the GameCube's problems than something as minor as online gaming. If online gaming meant anything Xbox would be number one instead of a very, very distant second. |
Originally posted by darkside Jebus, what kind of friends do you have? |
Originally posted by darkside If online gaming meant anything Xbox would be number one instead of a very, very distant second. |
Originally posted by Trigger 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. 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. ;) |
Originally posted by Josh Hinkle 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. ;) 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. :D |
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 |
Originally posted by Stoolie Make online gaming free, baby! 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. |
Originally posted by Ralph Wiggum Obviously, Nintendo is not making the right decision. They are in last place and falling. Their market share has consistently decreased for the last decade. How can it be the right decision to be the only company to have no online plan and limit gaming options? ... Nintendo didn't embrace online gaming because they are out of touch. 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. |
Originally posted by Josh Hinkle 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. ;) 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. |
Originally posted by mmconhea 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. 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. |
Originally posted by Kainan 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). 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. |
Originally posted by Kainan 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. stoolie |
Originally posted by Josh Hinkle 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. |
Originally posted by Stoolie 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 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. |
Originally posted by Josh Hinkle 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. ;) |
| All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:47 AM. |
Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.