What's new

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

Rob_Pierce

Second Unit
Joined
Apr 24, 2002
Messages
297
I think EA would go with Microsoft if they didn't have to tie their games into a system where MS makes all of the money off of playing EA's games online.
I agree there, too. It's all about the Benjamins, boys. EA has enough power to play hard to get and hold out for a sweeter deal.
 

Michael St. Clair

Senior HTF Member
Joined
May 3, 1999
Messages
6,001
EA wants a model where every publisher charges their own fee. You want EA, you pay 12 bucks (or something like that a month). You want Sega, you pay another 10 bucks or so a month. You want Activision, there's another 15 bucks or so a month.

Frankly, I believe that this model will fail. I think that consumers will only accept a flat-rate-for-all-publishers model that includes all games except giant persistent-world titles (like MMORPGs).
 

Joe Szott

Screenwriter
Joined
Feb 22, 2002
Messages
1,962
Real Name
Joe S.
Rhett nailed MS' problem right now:

EA wants a model where every publisher charges their own fee. You want EA, you pay 12 bucks (or something like that a month). You want Sega, you pay another 10 bucks or so a month. You want Activision, there's another 15 bucks or so a month.
Exactly, EA cares no more for gamers than MS does. But the fact is that beyond a game that takes lots of upkeep (MMORPG style), I would not pay for each game. Even paying MS $50 a year for XBL is wearing it thin, as they don't even provide their own dedicated game servers. I figure MS has until Halo 2 to show us what they can provide, after that it's back to the PC ;)
 

Morgan Jolley

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Oct 16, 2000
Messages
9,712
Aside from being compact and occasionally supporting better graphics than PS2, what is the advantage to having it?
Well, considering that it was $100 cheaper than the PS2 and X-Box when it came out, and that Nintendo's first party titles are usually AAA-quality games, I think it comes down to if you like the games it has or not. Nintendo has proven to me over the years that they can create great games that I enjoy.

I think they should dabble in online gaming, but that doesn't mean I'm going to be mad if they don't. I'm satisfied that my $50 was well spent on every game of theirs that I own, regardless of online play. They really have 3 choices for online gaming:

1) Make an online gaming network that they control, like XBL. In this situation, THEY must invest in a huge nation-wide network and create everything that goes with it. This costs a lot of money and won't start to be profitable until they start selling amazing amounts of games or get a lot of support from other developers.

2) Do everything like Sony and Sega (with the Dreamcast) and allow other companies to make their own networks for their games if they want to and even charge if they want to. This is pretty much what they're doing now, except they're not supporting it with their own content. Why? Who knows.

3) Hold out until the next generation, slowly build up a library of games, make deals with other third party developers for exclusive games, and then release everything at once to get a good start. I think is probably what they are doing, and to be honest, it doesn't seem like a bad idea. Nintendo has money in the bank, why not try to woo other developers to bring their online games to the next Nintendo console (which may be what's actually happening)?
 

David Lee

Stunt Coordinator
Joined
Jun 14, 2001
Messages
72
If Sony's online model proves to be what companies like EA, Activision, Eidos, etc. want, then what becomes of MS live and the millions they've spent building it. Not saying that MS won't be successful, it's just that it's a tough decision that Nintendo didn't want to make right now. If Sony's model proves to be more successful, Nintendo's patience might save them millions in the long run. If they jumped right in they would have made the same costly mistake that MS might or might not be making. Time will tell.
 

Jeff Kleist

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Dec 4, 1999
Messages
11,266
2) Do everything like Sony and Sega (with the Dreamcast) and allow other companies to make their own networks for their games if they want to and even charge if they want to. This is pretty much what they're doing now, except they're not supporting it with their own content. Why? Who knows.
EA is free to charge for their games. EA just knows they can't charge as much with MS in the picture (aka "I pay $50 a year for live, why shoul I be paying double that to EA)
 

Jason Harbaugh

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Jul 30, 2001
Messages
2,968
I think EA just wants control over their own games online. What's wrong with that?
There's plenty wrong with that. When 2k4 arrives, EA wants all 2K3 games to be disabled online. They are strongarming consumers to purchase the newest version. I'm glad MS stuck to their guns and basically told EA that it was MS way or the highway. EA is so far under the sheets with Sony that it doesn't matter anyway.

I've been playing games online since 96. I think that consoles still are playing catchup to what the PC has had nearly a decade perfecting. I'll also add that I've done it all for free that entire time. (minus the online connection whether dialup or broadband) So paying a monthly fee is a deterant. A fee to play all games available is much easier to digest than pay per game or developer. MMORPGs aside (which I won't pay for either). So far I think Live has been the model to follow. My only complaint has been the lack of dedicated servers. That is what really makes me question what I'm paying for. If they get that squared away then I'll pay my $50 a year (no more than that). Otherwise I'll stick with PC gaming where a 64player game of BF1942 gives me zero lag with voice communication on Roger Wilco.

As for Nintendo, I gave up on them a long time ago. Saying people aren't interested in online gaming is just foolish. I believe that any game that is multiplayer whether it is just 2 players max should be playable online.
 

David Lee

Stunt Coordinator
Joined
Jun 14, 2001
Messages
72
The point I'm trying to make is that it might be premature to call Nintendo's online strategy [or lack of]a clear mistake or wrong, right now. Not including dvd playback was clearly a mistake. Not giving more attention to increasing the number of mature titles is a mistake. Not giving more attention to sports titles is a mistake. They have admitted to their mistakes with regards to third party licensing, etc. and are working to correct that.
 

David Lee

Stunt Coordinator
Joined
Jun 14, 2001
Messages
72
Yeah, but that 5% probably buys 25%+ of the software sold.

That sounds a little farfetched to think that 5%, any 5%, buys a quarter of every title sold.
 

David Lee

Stunt Coordinator
Joined
Jun 14, 2001
Messages
72
I'm glad MS stuck to their guns and basically told EA that it was MS way or the highway.

It seems the other way around, the highway just happens to be the market leader, Sony.
 

Jeff Kleist

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Dec 4, 1999
Messages
11,266
The 5% are the hardcore gamers. Console manufacturers assume that you're going to buy 7-10 games over the lifetime of the console (Joe sixpack). The hardcore buys 20+ games
 

David Lee

Stunt Coordinator
Joined
Jun 14, 2001
Messages
72
If their are 400 PS2 games on the market. That means that 5 percent of hardcore gamers own 100 games each. That sounds a lot more than 20+ would seem to suggest.
 

Morgan Jolley

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Oct 16, 2000
Messages
9,712
That sounds a little farfetched to think that 5%, any 5%, buys a quarter of every title sold
True, but it is a very small percentage that buys most of the games out there. I think something like 60% of taxes in America are paid by the richest 5% or something like that.
 

Allen_Appel

Second Unit
Joined
Dec 13, 2002
Messages
418
If people are going to cite percentages, could they please do so accurately and not use terms like "probably" or "something like that", m'kay?
 

James D S

Screenwriter
Joined
Nov 14, 2000
Messages
1,000
If their are 400 PS2 games on the market. That means that 5 percent of hardcore gamers own 100 games each. That sounds a lot more than 20+ would seem to suggest.
Interesting math... Besides, Jeff said 1/4 of games bought, not made. HUGE difference. Nice try, though. ;)
 

pitchman

Screenwriter
Joined
Aug 11, 1998
Messages
1,878
Location
Columbia, MO
Real Name
Gary
From a consumer standpoint, I think Microsoft's approach makes the most sense (an annual or monthly subscription fee to play most games with an additional fee for "premium" content.) This is a tried and true business model and one that is familiar to millions of consumers -- think cable tv and HBO.

For me personally, Live has proved to be an easy way to get into online gaming and test the waters. This is not something I do every day. It tends to be a "hot & cold" experience. A new title may bring me back to Live for three or four days in row. Then, I may not go near it for a week.

If EA succeeds, then I'm going to be on the hook for literally every online game I play. I, for one, have zero interest in maintaining separate monthly subscriptions for individual titles. If that becomes the only way to play games online, then quite simply, I won't.

As I said at the top of this post, I think Live is a good idea from a consumer standpoint. By the same token, EA should be able to make money from their online titles. What's the solution, then?

I think there are at least two choices. One is that Microsoft could pay a royalty to EA every time someone on Live plays an EA title. (Turning to our cable tv business model, this is similar to the type of fee a channel like ESPN charges the cable system that carries it. The fee is usually based on the number of system subscribers, but can often times be negotiable.) "We'll give a preferred rate for ESPN if you agree to carry ESPN Classic and ESPN News."

A better solution might be for EA to position their games as premium content (i.e. HBO.) If I want to play Madden, then there's an additional monthly charge, (most of which goes directly to EA) but it's still part of my regular Live agreement.

For online console gaming to become a mainstream success, they're going to have to make it easy for consumers to get into. Only the most dedicated gamers are going to maintain individual subscriptions to multiple games on a monthly basis.
 

Allen_Appel

Second Unit
Joined
Dec 13, 2002
Messages
418
I'm sure Microsoft and EA explored every possible business model in their negotiations, and it came to naught. Face it, if you want to play Madden online, you're going to need a PS2.
 

Michael St. Clair

Senior HTF Member
Joined
May 3, 1999
Messages
6,001
I'm sure Microsoft and EA explored every possible business model in their negotiations, and it came to naught. Face it, if you want to play Madden online, you're going to need a PS2.
For the next couple of years, definitely. Down the road, there may be some re-thinking depending on which aspects of the business models are working and which ones are not.
 

Graeme Clark

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Jan 5, 2000
Messages
2,180
EA is still trying to figure out what they are doing with EA Online in the first place. The console games were free last year and appear to be again this year.

Last year some PC games had a fee after the first month or two, while others didn't have any fee. This year, I know for hockey at least, they are supplying a "free suscription card" which will give you a year's subscription to EA Online.

They've already done a bit of re-thinking.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top