Nintendo says consumers not ready for online gaming (1 Viewer)

[Michael St. Clair]

http://www.gamesindustry.biz/content...e=new&aid=1881

Speaking in an interview with the Puget Sound Business Journal, Harrison commented that "we just don't believe consumers are ready for [online gaming]. Right now, no one's paying for subscriptions. The real test comes when you have to start coughing up $15 a month."

Microsoft has got about half a million global subscribers pretty damned fast. Sure, it's a niche, but a niche that is growing fast.

I think Sony claims to have sold a million copies of SOCOM. Of course, we don't know how many of them have been played online, and how long the users have stayed online, but that sure shows some strong interest even if there is no monthly fee.

$15 a month? Try $4.25 a month for XBox Live.

I think this is spin doctoring their halfhearted online flop - a single pay-per-month game along with a modem and broadband adaptor that can't be found in stores.

 

[James St]

Sounds like the Iraqi Information Minister got a job at Nintendo.

 

[Mario_Y]

Man, if they don't have nothing to say, they shouldn't say a damn thing, huh...??

 

[Jeff Kleist]

Just like with "cartidges provide a superior gaming experience" they hope if they keep saying it it'll become true

 

[Michael St. Clair]

Nintendo is about to recycle, for the third and fourth time each, two games I enjoy a lot. Mario Golf, and F-Zero.

I'd buy them both. But at this point, the idea of buying a sport or racing title that I can't play online is unattractive.

I'm genuinely disappointed.

 

[Mike__D]

Just like with "cartidges provide a superior gaming experience" they hope if they keep saying it it'll become true

Compared to CD-ROM access times back then, the cartridge was superior.

Mike D.

 

[Joseph Young]

Right now, no one's paying for subscriptions.

Does anyone have any hard numbers, as in a percentage of console gamers who are currently online?

~j

 

[Kelley_B]

Just like with "cartidges provide a superior gaming experience" they hope if they keep saying it it'll become true

They do, if they are big enough. Look at most Arcade boards.

 

[Jeff Kleist]

However, cartidges are limited in capacity enough in the home market by sheer manufacturing costs to cause them to not be the preferable medium

 

[JayV]

But at this point, the idea of buying a sport or racing title that I can't play online is unattractive.

Yeah, I feel the same way about racing games. Since I'm out of it with GameCube (except for playing one periodically), are there any games other than PSO that are online?

And if anyone took their GC's online, what kind of experience was it?

-j

 

[Mike__D]

However, cartidges are limited in capacity enough in the home market by sheer manufacturing costs to cause them to not be the preferable medium

That hold true for today's games that have high res textures and need lots of storage. But when the N64 was introduced, CD-ROM wasn't up to speed for what Nintendo wanted.

Even today, Nintendo uses smaller discs which speeds up access time. Look at any head to head comparison in IGN and the Cube always has faster load times than PS2.

Mike D.

 

[Chris Rock]

Sounds like the Iraqi Information Minister got a job at Nintendo.

= Har!

 

[Jordan_E]

Or, in other words, we don't have anything worth going online for in the near future so no one is ready for online gaming! Sheesh.

 

[James D S]

That hold true for today's games that have high res textures and need lots of storage. But when the N64 was introduced, CD-ROM wasn't up to speed for what Nintendo wanted.

Lest we forget that the decision to stay with the carts caused them to lose that round of console wars (a loss they have yet to bounce back from - and with arguments like the one above about the readiness of online play, it seems the cycle is doomed to repeat) and it allowed a fledgling console maker, Sony, the window to dominate. Losing Square to Sony, and FF VII in the process, sealed the fate of the "superior" cart technology.

Concerning arcade boards, the shear cost of new boards is a significant blow to their superiority in a practical sense. For commercial/console applications, they are clearly not superior.

 

[Mike__D]

I'm not going to disagree carts were part of N64 losing that round, but I think there were other factors as well.

Back on topic... I'm thinking Nintendo is taking a wait and see attitude to see who's online strategy succeeds.

Mike D.

 

[Michael St. Clair]

Back on topic... I'm thinking Nintendo is taking a wait and see attitude to see who's online strategy succeeds.

Good thing they have deep coffers, because this reactive position could cost them greatly.

In business, doing nothing can sometimes be the most expensive choice.

 

[Morgan Jolley]

Am I the only one who thinks there's nothing wrong with their strategy? They've said before that they don't want to jump into online gaming because it's not that profitable yet. MS is doing it because they can, and they're getting hit REALLY hard with the X-Box. Sony is doing it slow and steady without jumping in too fast, either, except they're making bigger investments and taking more risks.

Nintendo is making online-enabled games right now, that was said a while ago. They're just not going to do anything with them until they formulate a strategy that will make them money.

And if they keep delivering good offline games, then what's wrong with that?

 

[Allen_Appel]

Nintendo's position regarding online gaming has always been that if they can't make money on it, they won't do it. This seems to be their view on almost everything, as in not selling their consoles as loss leaders, choosing proprietary media to combat piracy, etc. I read a lot of posts from people who liked the Live service well enough at $50 a year, but were prepared to drop it if it were priced higher. Like with Sega's PSO, I think developers are free to create online games for the GameCube, although nobody else has yet done so. Xbox Live *might* be a money-maker for MS (does anyone know?), but I imagine it's just another write-off to gain a toehold with gamers. Haven't most of the recent subscription-based games been flops (Everquest for PS2, Planetside, Sims Online)? EA seems to be edging towards a subscription to play (some or all of) their online games. Is HSN a part of the Live service, or is it covered under a separate fee? I don't imagine that MS or Sony are actually making money from online gaming, so how is it a bad move on Nintendo's part not to join them in the great money giveaway? As an online console gamer, I'm disappointed that Nintendo doesn't provide this service, but I don't see it as a particularly bad decision.

For some reason, I'm now seeing the GC broadband adapter everywhere, I picked mine up at Toys R Us.

 

[Jeffrey D Smith]

$15 a month? Try $4.25 a month for XBox Live.

And you think MS is actually making money at that price, or even covering their own cost?

MS increase loss in their home entertainment division tells me likely not.

I understand that MS is using the subsidized service to attract people to the system, and yes people can argue that they make money back by more games sold. I don't know how much of that is true or not.

One thing I do know is that Nintendo has never been in the habit of "burning" money in hopes for a future return long down the road. They have the money to do it, but unlike MS they have no other revenue stream to patch losses.

 

[MikeAlletto]

I agree with Nintendo. Online console gaming does not have a good killer app nor does it have a good model to make money yet. You don't see people saying, "I'm not gonna buy fzero cause its not online playable" or "I'm not buying mario or zelda because its not online playable".

The only people that seem to be saying online console play is great is xbox people. I've been playing online games on the PC for many many years and I think even that is not all its cracked up to be.

I'd really be curious to see how many live subscribers are still in their initial year of playing and how many of them are paying yet never even get online either because they forgot to cancel or just never bothered to cancel their subscription. Half a million out of what 13 million total xboxes is not a very large group. So you have to ask yourself what are the other 12.5 million doing if its so awesome? I feel online console gaming is still way too small of a niche market to be worthwhile and I'm glad Nintendo is not wasting to much of their time on it.