4th November 2003, 2:32 PM
About the reasons for their anti-online, pro-connectivity stances. These few paragraphs in particular were very good and made a lot of sense to myself and ABF:
Harsh, but the writer makes some very good points. So far Nintendo's excuses for not wanting to go online have been completely ridiculous (see the Mario Kart DD interview), and I knew that there had to be another reason for it. With X-Box Live users are able to get a lot out of their games, and I'm not just talking about multiplayer. So far Ubi Soft has released three great, full-sized levels for Splinter Cell which has added a lot of life to it. They've also released around five or so new levels to Ghost Recon and GR Island Thunder, so even the single-player mode has been given quite a bit of longevity. The levels are free so Ubi Soft doesn't get anything directly from the game owners, although I'm sure they've been compensated my MS. Nintendo of course would never do that because they're all about profit. It is a blessing and a curse for them. It is a blessing because they make a lot of money but it's a curse because it prevents them from getting into long-term investments like MS is with X-Box Live.
It also makes perfect sense with the whole GBA connectivity thing. In order to get the most out of certain games you need to have a GBA and a link cable, and in some cases an expensive E-Reader. More money for Nintendo. They see immiediate profits from connectivity but they wouldn't from online gaming.
I just hope Nintendo wisens up before it's too late.
Quote:For the longest time, I could not understand it. It just did not make sense to me why Nintendo would want to ignore a market that everyone else has already deemed to be the future of video gaming, and then go off and try to create a market that revolved around the concept of connectivity. Then it hit me like that proverbial bolt of lightning; this was Nintendo we were dealing with. The whole connectivity concept in itself is unique, is intriguing, but in the end is useless. The functions and the features you receive with these features are more of a hindrance than help. Instead of being able to complete a game by just buying it, you now need to have the Game Boy Advance and a hook up device in order to collect all the items, or see all the rooms, or to enjoy all the features of a game. In essence, you are no longer able to get 100% of everything in a game (items, rooms cleared, rooms visited, items collected and used) unless you have the Game Boy Advance. Purchasing a game is no longer enough in order for you to finish it. You need to purchase another console, a hook up, and another game in order to get everything out of a game for which you have already paid out hard currency. There are very few real functions you can receive out of having a Game Boy Advance as a controller (The second screen is the only plus I can think of) rather than that of a regular GameCube controller.
For Nintendo though, this plays out perfectly. People must now buy several products in order to play a normal game. People who own a GameCube must buy a Game Boy Advance in order to finish their games. People who own a Game Boy Advance will now be intrigued into buying a GameCube. Everyone who owns one Nintendo product will most likely own several in the future. And how do they do this? By taking the product we have forever taken for granted, and slicing it up into two different parts. The 90% of the game that you will receive by just purchasing it, and the other 10% will only come if you have hook ups and a Game Boy Advance. In the end, the whole thing boils down to a money grab. For the money they are asking from us, we the gamers are receiving very little in return. In essence, we are receiving what we should be getting anyways.
This however, does not answer why Nintendo has ignored the online aspects of their console almost completely. That is when the second bolt of that proverbial lightning thundered down on my skull. The capability of adding an online feature into a game only lengthens its life span. While the single player game may hold you for a couple weeks, and the multiplayer maybe another month, the online aspect (with the communities, world wide rankings, favorite servers, clans, etc) adds another six months to a year to a games life span. Not only that, but as has been shown by the X-Box, games that have already been released get updates to their single player games as well. Adding more levels, enemies, items, moves, and what have you, you can extend the single player experience another two or three weeks as well. Now a game that has been released six months before, is still getting some playtime, and in essence, you have 110% of the game you paid for.
That is exactly why Nintendo would never want to touch the online aspect of gaming. Online abilities give the player more, while Nintendo is only interested in giving the player less. Nintendo wants you to go out and buy three different products, just so that you can fully complete a game. The competition however, wants to give the gamer more for his gaming dollar. The competition seems only too happy to add stuff to a game through its online services, a full six months after a game has been pushed out the door. Even though the competition does charge for its online abilities, those online abilities outweigh the abilities of the whole “connectivity” concept by about 1000 to 1. Whereas I will be able to open an extra room or see an extra picture if I buy a Game Boy Advance, a hook up, and the Game Boy Advance version of the game, I will be able to receive whole extra levels, a whole arena of people from across the world to play with, stats, clans, you name it with my online capabilities.
Either way you look at online gaming, you will have to admit that it will be a very prominent part of the video gaming market in the future. While Nintendo sits back and tinkers with its connectivity capabilities, completely ignoring the true future of the video gaming market, you will be glad to know that without the help or hindrance of online gaming, Nintendo will be posting its very first net-loss this quarter.
Harsh, but the writer makes some very good points. So far Nintendo's excuses for not wanting to go online have been completely ridiculous (see the Mario Kart DD interview), and I knew that there had to be another reason for it. With X-Box Live users are able to get a lot out of their games, and I'm not just talking about multiplayer. So far Ubi Soft has released three great, full-sized levels for Splinter Cell which has added a lot of life to it. They've also released around five or so new levels to Ghost Recon and GR Island Thunder, so even the single-player mode has been given quite a bit of longevity. The levels are free so Ubi Soft doesn't get anything directly from the game owners, although I'm sure they've been compensated my MS. Nintendo of course would never do that because they're all about profit. It is a blessing and a curse for them. It is a blessing because they make a lot of money but it's a curse because it prevents them from getting into long-term investments like MS is with X-Box Live.
It also makes perfect sense with the whole GBA connectivity thing. In order to get the most out of certain games you need to have a GBA and a link cable, and in some cases an expensive E-Reader. More money for Nintendo. They see immiediate profits from connectivity but they wouldn't from online gaming.
I just hope Nintendo wisens up before it's too late.