Did the PSP Monster Hunter games even have online multiplayer?
Not without an external apliation (AdHoc Party on PS3 or X-Link Kai on PC). They're AdHoc multiplayer games.
Tri (Wii) and Frontier (360) are the only two online ones.
Hell, with the Wii's lack of online infrastructure, getting DQX online might be a similar experience. As far as I see it, if it was an MMORPG, they'd have said so. They didn't, so I wouldn't assume otherwise nor that the most popular series in Japan is going to bomb by following an extremely profitable trend.
It does when the options to go online aren't portable despite a large part of the success of the game on the PSP was portability. Also, do you really think most users are going to bother going through that shit to play online? Having to use an external program to play a game online isn't something most players are going to bother with.
Didn't seem to stop the several million PSP owners from picking up the MH games and playing them online.
Is there any evidence most of them are played online?
The millions of Monster Hunter players out there live in Japan, and I'm pretty sure they've been playing it in local Ad-Hoc. But Ad-Hoc Party and X-Link Kai (the two main methods of tunneling online for PSP play) are pretty popular. If you log into Ad-Hoc Party right now, even on the US side (where we don't have Monster Hunter pillows and candy), you'll find several dozen Ad-Hoc Party rooms just for Monster Hunter.
Nintendo is "creating a much more flexible system," Fils-Aime said, "that will allow the best approaches by independent publishers to come to bear. So instead of a situation where a publisher has their own network and wants that to be the predominant platform, and having arguments with platform holders, we're going to welcome that. We're going to welcome that from the best and the brightest of the third party publishers."
i.e. Nintendo doesn't have an online infrastructure.
Nintendo is "creating a much more flexible system," Fils-Aime said, "that will allow the best approaches by independent publishers to come to bear. So instead of a situation where a publisher has their own network and wants that to be the predominant platform, and having arguments with platform holders, we're going to welcome that. We're going to welcome that from the best and the brightest of the third party publishers."
i.e. Nintendo doesn't have an online infrastructure.
Does that mean Sony doesn't either because that describes what Sony did with Steam to a T.
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]XBL: Rakayn | PS3: Rakayn | Steam ID
Nintendo is "creating a much more flexible system," Fils-Aime said, "that will allow the best approaches by independent publishers to come to bear. So instead of a situation where a publisher has their own network and wants that to be the predominant platform, and having arguments with platform holders, we're going to welcome that. We're going to welcome that from the best and the brightest of the third party publishers."
i.e. Nintendo doesn't have an online infrastructure.
Does that mean Sony doesn't either because that describes what Sony did with Steam to a T.
It means SONY gave Valve what they wanted. In this case, Nintendo isn't even going to bother if publishers have their own setup.
As in, it's now in every publisher's best interest to create their own online plan because Nintendo doesn't give a shit.
Nintendo is "creating a much more flexible system," Fils-Aime said, "that will allow the best approaches by independent publishers to come to bear. So instead of a situation where a publisher has their own network and wants that to be the predominant platform, and having arguments with platform holders, we're going to welcome that. We're going to welcome that from the best and the brightest of the third party publishers."
i.e. Nintendo doesn't have an online infrastructure.
Does that mean Sony doesn't either because that describes what Sony did with Steam to a T.
It means SONY gave Valve what they wanted. In this case, Nintendo isn't even going to bother if publishers have their own setup.
As in, it's now in every publisher's best interest to create their own online plan because Nintendo doesn't give a shit.
Sony let an independent publisher use their own network. That's what the quote describes. It says jack shit about what Nintendo is doing themselves.
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]XBL: Rakayn | PS3: Rakayn | Steam ID
0
Options
HenroidMexican kicked from Immigration ThreadCentrism is Racism :3Registered Userregular
Doesn't give a shit to interfere? Or doesn't give a shit to develop a platform everyone will want to use?
I hope the Crytek abuse thing really is bullshit, because it seems like every time I turn around another company that I like in the industry turns out to treat their employees like shit and it's kinda getting old.
Nintendo is "creating a much more flexible system," Fils-Aime said, "that will allow the best approaches by independent publishers to come to bear. So instead of a situation where a publisher has their own network and wants that to be the predominant platform, and having arguments with platform holders, we're going to welcome that. We're going to welcome that from the best and the brightest of the third party publishers."
i.e. Nintendo doesn't have an online infrastructure.
Does that mean Sony doesn't either because that describes what Sony did with Steam to a T.
It means SONY gave Valve what they wanted. In this case, Nintendo isn't even going to bother if publishers have their own setup.
As in, it's now in every publisher's best interest to create their own online plan because Nintendo doesn't give a shit.
Sony let an independent publisher use their own network. That's what the quote describes. It says jack shit about what Nintendo is doing themselves.
So instead of a situation where a publisher has their own network and wants that to be the predominant platform, and having arguments with platform holders, we're going to welcome that.
As awkward as this line is, it is saying that Nintendo is going to allow publishers to use their own thing rather than force them to comply with standards they don't have anyway.
Holy crap that is a huge fraction buying in store. You would think they'd take that as a sign to do something, but I guess not!
They took from it that outside retail outlets are still really important, when the message they should have been taking from it is "interacting with MS's billing process is less pleasant than eating broken glass"
EDIT: Ok yeah the article Echo posted is what I'm referring to
Also, at least in the UK, it's always always cheaper to buy cards (which are subject to retailer discounts and coupons and the like) than it is to purchase points directly. Some sites like ShopTo will even email you the code on the card directly rather than post it, so it's not even less convenient.
Its the same in the US, there's no reason to slap a CC on your Live account because it's virtually impossible for them to remove it and/or not charge you for something you don't want. I had to claim my card was stolen and have a new one issued by my bank years ago just to get the damn auto-renew to stop and this was after a dozen calls to Pratesh and Samir at their support line.
A year sub and MS Points are always on sale at Amazon for less then they are on the service itself and they email you the code within minutes. I think I paid 35 bucks a year at the most for a year subsctiption and always buy the "4000 MS Points for 39.99" deal they have going all the time.
I hope the Crytek abuse thing really is bullshit, because it seems like every time I turn around another company that I like in the industry turns out to treat their employees like shit and it's kinda getting old.
Well, I'd say the majority of working relationships in business tend to be at least a little bit abusive. Only question is whether it's them getting their money's worth or whether it's too much.
Jobs aren't supposed to be candyland, despite what a union will tell you.
0
Options
MaddocI'm Bobbin Threadbare, are you my mother?Registered Userregular
I can't see that as anything but Nintendo trying to spin their absolute lack of any online infrastructure as allowing more freedom for publishers.
Which, while true in the absolute most technical sense, still means that all they're doing is not actively impeding publishers. I haven't seen anything that makes me believe they're planning on making things actually easier for them.
0
Options
HenroidMexican kicked from Immigration ThreadCentrism is Racism :3Registered Userregular
I can't see that as anything but Nintendo trying to spin their absolute lack of any online infrastructure as allowing more freedom for publishers.
Which, while true in the absolute most technical sense, still means that all they're doing is not actively impeding publishers. I haven't seen anything that makes me believe they're planning on making things actually easier for them.
Yeah, even if it is spin, they aren't pulling a Microsoft by having people use the Live servers by force. So it's bad, but it's good.
I can't see that as anything but Nintendo trying to spin their absolute lack of any online infrastructure as allowing more freedom for publishers.
Which, while true in the absolute most technical sense, still means that all they're doing is not actively impeding publishers. I haven't seen anything that makes me believe they're planning on making things actually easier for them.
Yeah, even if it is spin, they aren't pulling a Microsoft by having people use the Live servers by force. So it's bad, but it's good.
There's a whole lot to be said for "We aren't going to give you any bullshit to put up with." Even when that means they aren't going to give them anything.
I can't see that as anything but Nintendo trying to spin their absolute lack of any online infrastructure as allowing more freedom for publishers.
Which, while true in the absolute most technical sense, still means that all they're doing is not actively impeding publishers. I haven't seen anything that makes me believe they're planning on making things actually easier for them.
EA sports head said this:
"We are highlighting to them what we believe are the most important elements to that infrastructure to deliver a connected experience that we think is the future of gaming," Wilson explained. "They have demonstrated an openness and willingness to work with us and work with developers that I think will only land us in a positive place. We're working through the development with them now. We have a series of people who are under very strict NDAs as you can imagine, operating with them, building that system out."
and Peter Moore:
It’s critically important to us and we are relieved, if anything else, that they have made a huge commitment that they have presented to us… Online certainly was not a factor with the Wii, as you know; although they had capabilities, it just wasn’t there at the level that both Xbox Live and PlayStation had,” he said. “But I think Nintendo totally gets that multi-player, building community, co-op play, having the ability to bring games that are deeper – all of these things are now very important.
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]XBL: Rakayn | PS3: Rakayn | Steam ID
I can't see that as anything but Nintendo trying to spin their absolute lack of any online infrastructure as allowing more freedom for publishers.
Which, while true in the absolute most technical sense, still means that all they're doing is not actively impeding publishers. I haven't seen anything that makes me believe they're planning on making things actually easier for them.
Yeah, even if it is spin, they aren't pulling a Microsoft by having people use the Live servers by force. So it's bad, but it's good.
And yet with the LIVE stuff, no game is ever unplayable online no matter how old it is. Except for EA, of course, who had enough leverage to force MS to let them do their own thing and thus are able to shut down online service whenever they want.
I hope the Crytek abuse thing really is bullshit, because it seems like every time I turn around another company that I like in the industry turns out to treat their employees like shit and it's kinda getting old.
Well, I'd say the majority of working relationships in business tend to be at least a little bit abusive. Only question is whether it's them getting their money's worth or whether it's too much.
Jobs aren't supposed to be candyland, despite what a union will tell you.
This is true, but there is a difference between "We had two months of crunch, than a short break, than we started on the next game" and "we had four months of 70 hour workweeks, I got fired as soon as the game went gold, and now I have to take the company to court because they didn't pay me overtime".
0
Options
HenroidMexican kicked from Immigration ThreadCentrism is Racism :3Registered Userregular
I can't see that as anything but Nintendo trying to spin their absolute lack of any online infrastructure as allowing more freedom for publishers.
Which, while true in the absolute most technical sense, still means that all they're doing is not actively impeding publishers. I haven't seen anything that makes me believe they're planning on making things actually easier for them.
Yeah, even if it is spin, they aren't pulling a Microsoft by having people use the Live servers by force. So it's bad, but it's good.
And yet with the LIVE stuff, no game is ever unplayable online no matter how old it is. Except for EA, of course, who had enough leverage to force MS to let them do their own thing and thus are able to shut down online service whenever they want.
I wasn't taking a dig at Live for the record. I know a lot of people are unhappy with it for varying reasons.
For me, a perfect world would be the console makers providing a platform for companies who can't provide their own (like what MS does for indie developers), but allowing companies that are able to build their own platform to use that instead. Our current situation, as a whole, is merely a stepping stone. EA will have its Origin thing, Activision will have its own thing, but smaller devs or indie teams can still use the services offered by the console makers.
0
Options
HenroidMexican kicked from Immigration ThreadCentrism is Racism :3Registered Userregular
I hope the Crytek abuse thing really is bullshit, because it seems like every time I turn around another company that I like in the industry turns out to treat their employees like shit and it's kinda getting old.
Well, I'd say the majority of working relationships in business tend to be at least a little bit abusive. Only question is whether it's them getting their money's worth or whether it's too much.
Jobs aren't supposed to be candyland, despite what a union will tell you.
This is true, but there is a difference between "We had two months of crunch, than a short break, than we started on the next game" and "we had four months of 70 hour workweeks, I got fired as soon as the game went gold, and now I have to take the company to court because they didn't pay me overtime".
I can't remember any incident where a staff / employees of a game company that was complaining about abuse was merely collectively lazy and wanted to collect paychecks without working for a living. So what I'm saying is, if abuse is called in this industry, it tends to be legit. Which saddens me.
For me, a perfect world would be the console makers providing a platform for companies who can't provide their own (like what MS does for indie developers), but allowing companies that are able to build their own platform to use that instead. Our current situation, as a whole, is merely a stepping stone. EA will have its Origin thing, Activision will have its own thing, but smaller devs or indie teams can still use the services offered by the console makers.
And for me, that is the antithesis of a perfect world. I want to put up with a single company's bullshit, not eight company's various different flavors of bullshit. Well, I'd rather not put up with any company's bullshit, but between those two options, a single company is preferable.
I can appreciate a centralized, standard online system that Live uses.
On the other hand, I don't see anything inherently bad about Nintendo saying "Here are the tools, you can make whatever online function for your game you want".
That said though, Law No.1: Developers are lazy, is sure to go into full effect. They'll look at Nintendo and go "But I don't wanna..."
"The sausage of Green Earth explodes with flavor like the cannon of culinary delight."
0
Options
HenroidMexican kicked from Immigration ThreadCentrism is Racism :3Registered Userregular
For me, a perfect world would be the console makers providing a platform for companies who can't provide their own (like what MS does for indie developers), but allowing companies that are able to build their own platform to use that instead. Our current situation, as a whole, is merely a stepping stone. EA will have its Origin thing, Activision will have its own thing, but smaller devs or indie teams can still use the services offered by the console makers.
And for me, that is the antithesis of a perfect world. I want to put up with a single company's bullshit, not eight company's various different flavors of bullshit. Well, I'd rather not put up with any company's bullshit, but between those two options, a single company is preferable.
So basically you're a communist.
I can see the value of a single, consolidated service, but it doesn't inspire growth or change in functions / policies that diminish it.
I didn't realize this before, but DQ IX actually sold worse than DQVIII in the west.
In the West. On a portable. And is an RPG. And doesn't have 'Mario' or 'Pokemon' somewhere in the title.
Nintendo Network ID: V-Faction | XBL: V Faction | Steam | 3DS: 3136 - 6603 - 1330 PokemonWhite Friend Code: 0046-2121-0723/White2 Friend Code: 0519-5126-2990
"Did ya hear the one about the mussel that wanted to purchase Valve? Seems like the bivalve had a juicy offer on the table but the company flat-out refused and decided to immediately clam up!"
I can't see why that quote about WiiU infrastructure is awlays read as an all-or-nothing quote. Wouldn't it also be reasonable to assume Nintendo will have some service as well, but if developers want their own (almost definately better) one, then Nintendo wont get in their way?
Why is it always read as "Nintendo isn't going to do a fucking thing, everyone will have to work out their own online or they get nothing"?
I hope the Crytek abuse thing really is bullshit, because it seems like every time I turn around another company that I like in the industry turns out to treat their employees like shit and it's kinda getting old.
Well, I'd say the majority of working relationships in business tend to be at least a little bit abusive. Only question is whether it's them getting their money's worth or whether it's too much.
Jobs aren't supposed to be candyland, despite what a union will tell you.
This is true, but there is a difference between "We had two months of crunch, than a short break, than we started on the next game" and "we had four months of 70 hour workweeks, I got fired as soon as the game went gold, and now I have to take the company to court because they didn't pay me overtime".
I can't remember any incident where a staff / employees of a game company that was complaining about abuse was merely collectively lazy and wanted to collect paychecks without working for a living. So what I'm saying is, if abuse is called in this industry, it tends to be legit. Which saddens me.
Staff, probably legit. A single member of the staff? There are usually complaints from those on a regular basis. I don't have a clue if the Crysis thing is legit, and as I said, that publication was biased towards Crytek as all holy hell at the start. Still, when it's just one person it's usually someone that really doesn't belong in an industry with crunch times. The games industry is always close to that line between a tough job and abuse, and I don't expect it to change.
I can't see why that quote about WiiU infrastructure is awlays read as an all-or-nothing quote. Wouldn't it also be reasonable to assume Nintendo will have some service as well, but if developers want their own (almost definately better) one, then Nintendo wont get in their way?
Why is it always read as "Nintendo isn't going to do a fucking thing, everyone will have to work out their own online or they get nothing"?
Because we don't have evidence to support the fact that Nintendo is doing anything about the online system. I hope it's not the case but I'm not holding my breath.
Posts
Not without an external apliation (AdHoc Party on PS3 or X-Link Kai on PC). They're AdHoc multiplayer games.
Tri (Wii) and Frontier (360) are the only two online ones.
// Switch: SW-5306-0651-6424 //
Hell, with the Wii's lack of online infrastructure, getting DQX online might be a similar experience. As far as I see it, if it was an MMORPG, they'd have said so. They didn't, so I wouldn't assume otherwise nor that the most popular series in Japan is going to bomb by following an extremely profitable trend.
i.e. Nintendo doesn't have an online infrastructure.
Zeboyd Games Development Blog
Steam ID : rwb36, Twitter : Werezompire, Facebook : Zeboyd Games
Does that mean Sony doesn't either because that describes what Sony did with Steam to a T.
It means SONY gave Valve what they wanted. In this case, Nintendo isn't even going to bother if publishers have their own setup.
As in, it's now in every publisher's best interest to create their own online plan because Nintendo doesn't give a shit.
Sony let an independent publisher use their own network. That's what the quote describes. It says jack shit about what Nintendo is doing themselves.
Honestly I agree with both sentiments.
As awkward as this line is, it is saying that Nintendo is going to allow publishers to use their own thing rather than force them to comply with standards they don't have anyway.
Its the same in the US, there's no reason to slap a CC on your Live account because it's virtually impossible for them to remove it and/or not charge you for something you don't want. I had to claim my card was stolen and have a new one issued by my bank years ago just to get the damn auto-renew to stop and this was after a dozen calls to Pratesh and Samir at their support line.
A year sub and MS Points are always on sale at Amazon for less then they are on the service itself and they email you the code within minutes. I think I paid 35 bucks a year at the most for a year subsctiption and always buy the "4000 MS Points for 39.99" deal they have going all the time.
Well, I'd say the majority of working relationships in business tend to be at least a little bit abusive. Only question is whether it's them getting their money's worth or whether it's too much.
Jobs aren't supposed to be candyland, despite what a union will tell you.
Which, while true in the absolute most technical sense, still means that all they're doing is not actively impeding publishers. I haven't seen anything that makes me believe they're planning on making things actually easier for them.
Yeah, even if it is spin, they aren't pulling a Microsoft by having people use the Live servers by force. So it's bad, but it's good.
There's a whole lot to be said for "We aren't going to give you any bullshit to put up with." Even when that means they aren't going to give them anything.
Steam - Wildschwein | The Backlog
Grappling Hook Showdown - Tumblr
EA sports head said this:
and Peter Moore:
And yet with the LIVE stuff, no game is ever unplayable online no matter how old it is. Except for EA, of course, who had enough leverage to force MS to let them do their own thing and thus are able to shut down online service whenever they want.
This is true, but there is a difference between "We had two months of crunch, than a short break, than we started on the next game" and "we had four months of 70 hour workweeks, I got fired as soon as the game went gold, and now I have to take the company to court because they didn't pay me overtime".
I wasn't taking a dig at Live for the record. I know a lot of people are unhappy with it for varying reasons.
For me, a perfect world would be the console makers providing a platform for companies who can't provide their own (like what MS does for indie developers), but allowing companies that are able to build their own platform to use that instead. Our current situation, as a whole, is merely a stepping stone. EA will have its Origin thing, Activision will have its own thing, but smaller devs or indie teams can still use the services offered by the console makers.
I can't remember any incident where a staff / employees of a game company that was complaining about abuse was merely collectively lazy and wanted to collect paychecks without working for a living. So what I'm saying is, if abuse is called in this industry, it tends to be legit. Which saddens me.
On the other hand, I don't see anything inherently bad about Nintendo saying "Here are the tools, you can make whatever online function for your game you want".
That said though, Law No.1: Developers are lazy, is sure to go into full effect. They'll look at Nintendo and go "But I don't wanna..."
So basically you're a communist.
I can see the value of a single, consolidated service, but it doesn't inspire growth or change in functions / policies that diminish it.
hahahahahahaha
Pokemon White Friend Code: 0046-2121-0723/White 2 Friend Code: 0519-5126-2990
"Did ya hear the one about the mussel that wanted to purchase Valve? Seems like the bivalve had a juicy offer on the table but the company flat-out refused and decided to immediately clam up!"
Why is it always read as "Nintendo isn't going to do a fucking thing, everyone will have to work out their own online or they get nothing"?
Because their last service was pretty lackluster.
Staff, probably legit. A single member of the staff? There are usually complaints from those on a regular basis. I don't have a clue if the Crysis thing is legit, and as I said, that publication was biased towards Crytek as all holy hell at the start. Still, when it's just one person it's usually someone that really doesn't belong in an industry with crunch times. The games industry is always close to that line between a tough job and abuse, and I don't expect it to change.
Because we don't have evidence to support the fact that Nintendo is doing anything about the online system. I hope it's not the case but I'm not holding my breath.