Nintendo best get its act together with online play soon or else i may reinvest in a 360 or PS3.
I am still willing to believe this is nothing more than growing pains, but unless they lay off this whole "Think Of The Children!" trip Nintendo WILL fizzle out of the online gaming market and alienate alot of fans very quickly.
as I mentioned before I would be happy if adding friends was streamlined and I could at least talk with the people I have added.
i don't know if it's been discussed already, but Microsoft and Sony are giants in the world of general computing, and hence "internetting". one of the main reasons i think Nintendo is so hesitant to try to compete in the online space against Sony and especially against Microsoft is that Nintendo simply doesn't have the network infrastructure that Sony and Microsoft already have in place.
the modern Nintendo is first and foremost a console video gaming company, and does not have the computing and networking "departments" that Sony and Microsoft have. i hope to high heaven that Nintendo is using some of the ridiculous amounts of money they're making to invest in online technologies. but for now, they're at the point where Microsoft was in 1995, fumbling around with Encarta CDs while the new Internet-based companies were passing them by. Microsoft survived by virtue of their sheer monopoly. Sony's always been a multi-industrial zaibatsu, only relatively recently turning to gaming.
i guess i'm saying is that it's not completely Nintendo's fault here. they're still n00bs when it comes to the internet.
Microsoft has never been afraid of selling direct competitors software or services, Nintendo could very well have outsourced some of those aspects to them or any other more experienced company or at least hired a decent consultant. besides even the first X-Box live stuff was not this shitty. Hell i Remember being able to at least communicate with people and easily add friends back in the days of Heat.net
I haven't read this thread much, but I'll just say this:
I think the Nintendo WFC works just fine. But I'm also glad that I don't much care about online play, and really I only need it to serve really basic functions to get as much out of it that I need. All that Live stuff? I think it's great but it's not something I'd pay money for.
Overall, I'd rather play games with friends. Brawl online? I never cared about it. Never ever. Smash Bros is something I never even conceived of as something I'd play online. It's something that's such a blast with friends that I online multi is sort of small side thing that I probably won't much bother with.
Something I do like about online gaming is leaderboards, though. And those are virtually impossible to fuck up, no matter what online system you're using.
I haven't read this thread much, but I'll just say this:
I think the Nintendo WFC works just fine. But I'm also glad that I don't much care about online play, and really I only need it to serve really basic functions to get as much out of it that I need. All that Live stuff? I think it's great but it's not something I'd pay money for.
Overall, I'd rather play games with friends. Brawl online? I never cared about it. Never ever. Smash Bros is something I never even conceived of as something I'd play online. It's something that's such a blast with friends that I online multi is sort of small side thing that I probably won't much bother with.
Something I do like about online gaming is leaderboards, though. And those are virtually impossible to fuck up, no matter what online system you're using.
Unless you don't have any. Like Smash.
And I love playing Smash with my friends, but it's just hard to get all of us together. That's why I love online the most about this generation, it allows me to play with friends much more than I would normally wouldn't.
I haven't read this thread much, but I'll just say this:
I think the Nintendo WFC works just fine. But I'm also glad that I don't much care about online play, and really I only need it to serve really basic functions to get as much out of it that I need. All that Live stuff? I think it's great but it's not something I'd pay money for.
Overall, I'd rather play games with friends. Brawl online? I never cared about it. Never ever. Smash Bros is something I never even conceived of as something I'd play online. It's something that's such a blast with friends that I online multi is sort of small side thing that I probably won't much bother with.
Something I do like about online gaming is leaderboards, though. And those are virtually impossible to fuck up, no matter what online system you're using.
While I completely understand how local multi gaming trumps everything, I think a lot of people underestimate how very close to that couch experience you can get with voice chat with a group of friends while playing a game. Back when the game came out, I had the joys of getting invites into full 8-player Bomberman Live matches, and with a room of PA people it was just as furious and hilarious as any sort of living-room get-together. People shouting and cursing, instant rivalries, even the absurd victory dance for people that shelled out for the 360 camera. Even on the PS2, I paid extra for a friend's headset just so he and I could shoot the shit while playing Tiger Woods online together and not have to burn all our our cell-phone minutes.
Like EggyToast was alluding to a while back, I think it's a chicken-and-egg situation as far as "Nintendo WFC is good enough for me" and "I don't play a lot of online games anyway." Nintendo's current online endeavors may be enough for a lot of people because they don't play a lot ... but at the same time, maybe they don't play a lot because Nintendo's online hits the limits of what they're used to.
I agree I don't think it's the greatest, but I do enjoy the simplicity of it. I'm rather casual in my online play and just play old friends online, or the guys on the hall just come over and we play here. It doesn't matter really to me.
With parental controls, though, I don't see how Nintendo simply couldn't have turned voice or tags or certain things off for certain settings. I mean you can set things in your taunts and stuff so they're not really preventing a whole lot.
I don't even bother with WFC anymore, and I own both a DS and a Wii. Its just that bad. Its not even simple; the friends code thing is a pain in the ass, the general online "community" evaporates after a week or two...bleh.
"It doesn't cost money!" isn't an excuse. Neither does most online PC gaming. Strangely even most cheap, underfunded developers manage to include online features that kick WFC's ass up and down the aisle..
Of course, the problems with WFC go well beyond lack of voice. Like somebody else said, their service is bad enough that they should be paying me to use it.
They are. They gave you at least $50 for buying the system and $10 for every game you buy.
...and I thought of how all those people died, and what a good death that is. That nobody can blame you for it, because everyone else died along with you, and it is the fault of none, save those who did the killing.
My view of WFC has actually worsened with the release of Brawl. I have spent more time messing with entering friend codes (a large number of which never seem to register despite exchanging codes though PMs or something), timing out of all but one random match, messing with installing and reinstalling the stupid little dongle, moving between two different computers to get a closer signal, and finally screwing around with the static IP address thing and setting up a wireless router.
Honestly, I can't believe how primitive Nintendo's service seems. This seems like something we came up with in the 1990s and ditched accordingly when superior means of connection came about...except it was made in 2005...and apparently Nintendo thinks it can talk like they know all about online play come E3.
Omeks on
Online Info (Click Spoiler for More): |Xbox Live Tag: Omeks |PSN Tag:Omeks_R7 |Rock Band:Profile|DLC Collection
I don't even bother with WFC anymore, and I own both a DS and a Wii. Its just that bad. Its not even simple; the friends code thing is a pain in the ass, the general online "community" evaporates after a week or two...bleh.
90% of games especially on consoles, lose a vast majority of their players quick unless it is a huge title. This is not unique to the Wii or DS.
TelMarine on
3ds: 4983-4935-4575
0
HenroidMexican kicked from Immigration ThreadCentrism is Racism :3Registered Userregular
Of course, the problems with WFC go well beyond lack of voice. Like somebody else said, their service is bad enough that they should be paying me to use it.
They are. They gave you at least $50 for buying the system and $10 for every game you buy.
Served like a motherfucker. I didn't even know that.
And to the many people who keep saying things to the effect of voice not being an important part of gaming...what the fuck? When you have a couple buddies over for some face-to-face Smash Brothers, do you just sit there silently clicking buttons?
In my case, yeah some FFAs have light banter, but when it comes down to competitive 1v1 we are pretty silent since we are so focused on the game. Those are some of the best matches when you are really going at it.
I don't even bother with WFC anymore, and I own both a DS and a Wii. Its just that bad. Its not even simple; the friends code thing is a pain in the ass, the general online "community" evaporates after a week or two...bleh.
90% of games especially on consoles, lose a vast majority of their players quick unless it is a huge title. This is not unique to the Wii or DS.
Oh, I know. It just makes the already poor online even worse.
You'd be amazed how far fifty extra dollars a year goes.
That's less then a days extra work on minimum wage. Far less if you're not dirt poor. So really, enlighten a short fat, pasty loser such as myself as to how far it can strech? I mean really, twenty five quid a year? Seriously?
50$ buys me and my roommate enough food for two weeks. Also, we can go get fast food at least once during those two weeks. And none of it is ramen - it's all "real" food.
If the fast food is opted out of, I can stretch it to 3.
I'm actually writing an article for Another Castle talking about online gaming. It's focusing on Sony's offering, but I'm also writing about XBox Live and Wifi Connect. I'll post it when I'm done (if I can ever get away from my school work)
"Steamtendo" is a brilliant idea. Nintendo would never go for it though, at least based on their current message. It is rather heartbreaking for Nintendo to keep pushing themselves as the innovator of gaming technology and leave such a vacuum in their online department.
They need to except that adults aren't scared of the Internet and there needs to be some way past the friend codes. Allow for a method to verify age for adults to bypass the brick wall Nintendo put up between players. Tada. Then they can sleep at night!
Of course, the problems with WFC go well beyond lack of voice. Like somebody else said, their service is bad enough that they should be paying me to use it.
They are. They gave you at least $50 for buying the system and $10 for every game you buy.
Served like a motherfucker. I didn't even know that.
The +$50 I can see, if the console comes with a pack-in (which all Wiis do); I'm not seeing the +$10.
You'd be amazed how far fifty extra dollars a year goes.
That's less then a days extra work on minimum wage. Far less if you're not dirt poor. So really, enlighten a short fat, pasty loser such as myself as to how far it can strech? I mean really, twenty five quid a year? Seriously?
50$ buys me and my roommate enough food for two weeks. Also, we can go get fast food at least once during those two weeks. And none of it is ramen - it's all "real" food.
If the fast food is opted out of, I can stretch it to 3.
Man, when I read an example like this I just feel like it's making Leitner's point for him, because over those 2-3 weeks you're talking about Live costing $2-3 compared to $50 over that same interval. As a factoid, food for 2-3 weeks strikes me as distinctly unimpressive (although this may be partly because I live in San Diego, and groceries cost me $120-160/month, cooking 100% of the time).
I think the idea here is to have something that costs $50 for nearly the whole year as comparison. Which, for me, might be about how much I spend on catnip and fake mice. So there you go -- for the cost of Live, your cat might be that much more likely to walk up and bite you in the leg out of pure boredom.
EDIT: I was thinking about Dirty's $4.62/day over 1.5 years TV again... If we're talking about a $2500 TV then yes, I think it's fair to belittle the $50/year of Live. Especially if it's a once every 1.5 year expense, which probably wasn't the case but really ought to have been if these examples were meant to be non-facetious at all.
I am philosophically opposed to paying for online. I say it every once in a while (basically every time this discussion of paying for online comes up), and I get collectively shit on by many on this board for doing so.
I've heard it all:
-I'm too poor to be playing video games if I don't like giving MS the $50 to play online
-I'm an idiot with no understanding of economics (even though it was my minor) if I don't agree that MS is morally obliged to charge for Live.
-I'm probably not really into playing video games in the first place if I don't care much about a rich online multiplayer experience
Honestly, Nintendo's service is pretty horrible, all things considered, but then again, playing Smash Bros. online is hardly more than a bonus to me. If Nintendo wants to make it better, I'd be plenty happy, but I'd just as soon not play if they decide that the only way to do it is to charge for it. And while the pay-to-play service looms, I will be shocked if it is for anything more than allowing third parties to charge and/or for games that require a persistent online presence (read: Animal Crossing Online).
I don't even bother with WFC anymore, and I own both a DS and a Wii. Its just that bad. Its not even simple; the friends code thing is a pain in the ass, the general online "community" evaporates after a week or two...bleh.
90% of games especially on consoles, lose a vast majority of their players quick unless it is a huge title. This is not unique to the Wii or DS.
But as somebody said, this only makes it worse. The more effort required to get a decent online game going, the less people will bother. The less people willing to bother, the less players, then the less people willing to bother. Onward into oblivion.
A combination of lobbies and unified friend lists generally seems to give Live games much more staying power...or at least it did back in 2003, when there were even less players. It didn't have to be Halo 3; there were still plenty of people playing Crimson Skies months after release. Same with every other Live title I owned. Then again, maybe there were just less titles back then.
I do know that at the very least the per-game friend codes are a huge detriment to forming any kind of following in games. The number of people who otherwise would be all over some of the online titles who never even bother buying them (and many of the rest who buy the game but never bother with online) has got to be fairly significant. I know that a unified friend list alone would have Brawl on my shelf already, and I'd already have ordered Mario Kart. As it stands I'll likely never buy the latter, and may never buy the former. Without online as a selling point, there are simply other games I want more.
Honestly, Nintendo's service is pretty horrible, all things considered, but then again, playing Smash Bros. online is hardly more than a bonus to me. If Nintendo wants to make it better, I'd be plenty happy, but I'd just as soon not play if they decide that the only way to do it is to charge for it. And while the pay-to-play service looms, I will be shocked if it is for anything more than allowing third parties to charge and/or for games that require a persistent online presence (read: Animal Crossing Online).
It would have cost them nothing...literally nothing...to offer a single persistent friend code per console rather than per-game codes. That one change alone would have drastically improved the service overall. This isn't about "oh Live is only better because they charge." Nintendo's service isn't worse because it's free, or because they're the "little guy"...it's worse because they actively hate people who want to play online, and feel the need to punish them.
Thank God I don't have kids, cause if it gets to the point where paying $50 for one video game is a major financial decision, I'm going to cry.
It's not just a matter of finances, but also a matter of convincing your significant other that you should be getting "yet another video game" when you already have a good collection. Since getting married, other than special occasions like birthdays, Christmas, and extra money inflow (tax refunds, bonuses at work), game purchases are few and far between.
I don't think $50 is an unreasonable amount; it just boils down to whether online multiplayer on the 360 is worth that amount to you. Just recently, I got a very nice tax refund, of which me and my wife decided that $300 could be devoted to whatever fun stuff I wanted just for me. In the end, I got:
Lost Odyssey ($60/$60)
Smash Bros. Brawl ($50/$110)
6000 MS points for XBLA purchases ($75/$185)
A year's subscription to GameTap ($60/$245)
A couple discounted PS2 games ($45/$290)
The next volume of a manga I like ($10/$300)
I considered picking up a year of Gold with the $300, but I'm not a huge multiplayer fan and I'd probably only use it a few hours a month at most. In the end, I decided I'd rather have the other stuff I ended up buying.
Of course, the problems with WFC go well beyond lack of voice. Like somebody else said, their service is bad enough that they should be paying me to use it.
They are. They gave you at least $50 for buying the system and $10 for every game you buy.
Served like a motherfucker. I didn't even know that.
The +$50 I can see, if the console comes with a pack-in (which all Wiis do); I'm not seeing the +$10.
Well, I figure that Wii Sports, the Weather Channel, the News Channel, the Check Mii Out Channel and the Vote Channel can probably total to about 50 bucks.
I think the 10 per game is based around the fact that wii games still cost 50 bucks, vs Sony and Microsoft's 60.
Friend codes have pretty much stopped me from playing any online Nintendo games. I would love to play Brawl online, but I don't want to spend an hour+ just adding friends and hoping they add me. It would be one of the single greatest things Nintendo has ever done once they eliminate the stupid things.
All they had to do was put a filter on the system so you couldn't play online without a password.
Friend codes have pretty much stopped me from playing any online Nintendo games. I would love to play Brawl online, but I don't want to spend an hour+ just adding friends and hoping they add me. It would be one of the single greatest things Nintendo has ever done once they eliminate the stupid things.
All they had to do was put a filter on the system so you couldn't play online without a password.
And who would they give the password to? What would I have to do? How many people do I need to crush?
All they had to do was put a filter on the system so you couldn't play online without a password.
Pretty much. There already is a Parental Controls setup that comes standard on the system, so limiting what can and can't happen online from there would be infinitely more user-friendly.
Unfortunately, I think that paranoia about being litigated into oblivion has seeped into much of what Nintendo does these days. Epilepsy warnings every time the system turns on? Warnings about how to use the Wii Remote every time you try to play a game? Obviously Nintendo wants to be as far away as possible from anything that could become a liability.
I'd probably blame our litigious society first before Nintendo on that, though.
Friend codes have pretty much stopped me from playing any online Nintendo games. I would love to play Brawl online, but I don't want to spend an hour+ just adding friends and hoping they add me. It would be one of the single greatest things Nintendo has ever done once they eliminate the stupid things.
All they had to do was put a filter on the system so you couldn't play online without a password.
And who would they give the password to? What would I have to do? How many people do I need to crush?
Just make it an option for parents to turn on, like the rating filter. Not. Hard. Nintendo is worried about the kids(probably because of lawsuits), but I say fuck kids. What did they ever do for us? All they are doing now is fucking up my online Brawl.
People keep saying that not that many people care about playing Brawl online. I agree. You know why? Because those people knew it was going to suck. I can't even do a stock match. I hate timed matches. How am I suppose to improve my skills if I can't play 1v1? Shitty online features are one of them many reasons I will be skipping out on the new Mario Kart. What arbitrary limits do you suppose they will put on that game?
Since when was MarioKart all about online play? Fuck the best part ABOUT MarioKart was the fact that it is a great party game.
It's just like those fucking jokers that got all pissed that Mario Party 8 wasn't online. WTF? Mario Party online. Really? HOW FUN WOULD THAT BE? Not fun at all. Even with 4 different friends online it would be lame. I'm glad that my Wii is still focused on group fun and not online play.
I can't even name but maybe one or two games on my 360 that allow 4 people to play at once, and have a blast. And yet on my Wii I can name at least 6. (That's not including GCN games)
Since when was MarioKart all about online play? Fuck the best part ABOUT MarioKart was the fact that it is a great party game.
Yea, but some of us have jobs and stuff now. I don't have time every night to get a group of friends together to play, but I still want to enjoy the social aspect of the game. I want to hear someone's pained yell when I shove a blue shell up their ass.
I can't even name but maybe one or two games on my 360 that allow 4 people to play at once, and have a blast. And yet on my Wii I can name at least 6. (That's not including GCN games)
And that's a fault of the 360. Local multiplayer and internet multiplayer are not mutually exclusive. Both can exist on the same game.
All they had to do was put a filter on the system so you couldn't play online without a password.
Pretty much. There already is a Parental Controls setup that comes standard on the system, so limiting what can and can't happen online from there would be infinitely more user-friendly.
Unfortunately, I think that paranoia about being litigated into oblivion has seeped into much of what Nintendo does these days. Epilepsy warnings every time the system turns on? Warnings about how to use the Wii Remote every time you try to play a game? Obviously Nintendo wants to be as far away as possible from anything that could become a liability.
I'd probably blame our litigious society first before Nintendo on that, though.
The main problem I have is that, even assuming friend codes and the general process required to exchange them protects the cornholes of our valuable little ones, there is no reason per-game friend codes were ever needed. Having a single system friend code would serve the exact same purpose. It would cost no more. Not even a little. Think about it: replace the code that manages a game's unique friend code with code that instead loads a systemwide friend code from the onboard memory. Replace code that manages friend lists for individual games with code that instead accesses systemwide friend list. Zero added effort, but a thousand-fold improvement in the WFC online experience.
But like I said, Nintendo hates online gamers and is compelled to make us pay for our transgressions instead.
And that's a fault of the 360. Local multiplayer and internet multiplayer are not mutually exclusive. Both can exist on the same game.
Because I'm really sick of hearing the argument. There's no reason that adding a halfass-decent WFC experience to Mario Kart means they suddenly have to keep you from playing in the same room together as well.
The main problem I have is that, even assuming friend codes and the general process required to exchange them protects the cornholes of our valuable little ones, there is no reason per-game friend codes were ever needed. Having a single system friend code would serve the exact same purpose. It would cost no more. Not even a little. Think about it: replace the code that manages a game's unique friend code with code that instead loads a systemwide friend code from the onboard memory. Replace code that manages friend lists for individual games with code that instead accesses systemwide friend list. Zero added effort, but a thousand-fold improvement in the WFC online experience.
But like I said, Nintendo hates online gamers and is compelled to make us pay for our transgressions instead.
In theory, they did include that system, since if you have traded Wii System codes with somebody, then individual game codes are traded automatically.
In practice, I'm not sure it really works that way.
And that's a fault of the 360. Local multiplayer and internet multiplayer are not mutually exclusive. Both can exist on the same game.
Because I'm really sick of hearing the argument. There's no reason that adding a halfass-decent WFC experience to Mario Kart means they suddenly have to keep you from playing in the same room together as well.
I'm pretty sure the argument is going the other way - 360 and PS3 developers are neglecting local multiplayer in favor of online, because for the most part that's the kind of multiplayer that is desired most on those systems. I suppose the same could be said for Nintendo, but well, instead of feeling like we're losing something we've always had (local multiplayer), we're getting a tacked-on/crappy version of something new.
I can't even name but maybe one or two games on my 360 that allow 4 people to play at once(
Then you're not trying. Just off the top of my head, the following games are all fantastic in 4 player mode: Bomberman Live, Heavy Weapon, Worms, TMNT, Undertow, Carcasonne, Settlers of Catan, Worms, Tetris Splash, Marvel Ultimate Alliance, Scene It!
Of course, the problems with WFC go well beyond lack of voice. Like somebody else said, their service is bad enough that they should be paying me to use it.
They are. They gave you at least $50 for buying the system and $10 for every game you buy.
Served like a motherfucker. I didn't even know that.
The +$50 I can see, if the console comes with a pack-in (which all Wiis do); I'm not seeing the +$10.
He's making an exceedingly poor analogy that by getting a Wii, one saves $50 a year that you'd would spend on Live if you got a 360 and $10 per Wii game since you obviously bought a Wii game instead of an 360 game.
A steam-like service for their online gaming would be awesome. Hooking up to servers with an actual server list, having access to chat and friends lists via the home menu without exiting a game, setting up voice connections with players in other chat rooms or across games - yes, I really think they do need this. Getting online and finding friends to play with TF2 is just... ridiculously easy. It's as easy as playing a game single player.
Having an online store that's a little more robust than Virtual Console wouldn't hurt either.
I can't even name but maybe one or two games on my 360 that allow 4 people to play at once(
Then you're not trying. Just off the top of my head, the following games are all fantastic in 4 player mode: Bomberman Live, Heavy Weapon, Worms, TMNT, Undertow, Carcasonne, Settlers of Catan, Worms, Tetris Splash, Marvel Ultimate Alliance, Scene It!
And 90% of those are cheap boring games that last maybe an hour. (Aside from Marvel, which was the one I can only think of). Plus I don't see playing 4 player Catan being any fun.
urahonky on
0
PharezonStruggle is an illusion.Victory is in the Qun.Registered Userregular
I can't even name but maybe one or two games on my 360 that allow 4 people to play at once(
Then you're not trying. Just off the top of my head, the following games are all fantastic in 4 player mode: Bomberman Live, Heavy Weapon, Worms, TMNT, Undertow, Carcasonne, Settlers of Catan, Worms, Tetris Splash, Marvel Ultimate Alliance, Scene It!
And 90% of those are cheap boring games that last maybe an hour. (Aside from Marvel, which was the one I can only think of). Plus I don't see playing 4 player Catan being any fun.
Posts
I am still willing to believe this is nothing more than growing pains, but unless they lay off this whole "Think Of The Children!" trip Nintendo WILL fizzle out of the online gaming market and alienate alot of fans very quickly.
as I mentioned before I would be happy if adding friends was streamlined and I could at least talk with the people I have added.
Microsoft has never been afraid of selling direct competitors software or services, Nintendo could very well have outsourced some of those aspects to them or any other more experienced company or at least hired a decent consultant. besides even the first X-Box live stuff was not this shitty. Hell i Remember being able to at least communicate with people and easily add friends back in the days of Heat.net
I think the Nintendo WFC works just fine. But I'm also glad that I don't much care about online play, and really I only need it to serve really basic functions to get as much out of it that I need. All that Live stuff? I think it's great but it's not something I'd pay money for.
Overall, I'd rather play games with friends. Brawl online? I never cared about it. Never ever. Smash Bros is something I never even conceived of as something I'd play online. It's something that's such a blast with friends that I online multi is sort of small side thing that I probably won't much bother with.
Something I do like about online gaming is leaderboards, though. And those are virtually impossible to fuck up, no matter what online system you're using.
Steam ID: slashx000______Twitter: @bill_at_zeboyd______ Facebook: Zeboyd Games
Unless you don't have any. Like Smash.
And I love playing Smash with my friends, but it's just hard to get all of us together. That's why I love online the most about this generation, it allows me to play with friends much more than I would normally wouldn't.
While I completely understand how local multi gaming trumps everything, I think a lot of people underestimate how very close to that couch experience you can get with voice chat with a group of friends while playing a game. Back when the game came out, I had the joys of getting invites into full 8-player Bomberman Live matches, and with a room of PA people it was just as furious and hilarious as any sort of living-room get-together. People shouting and cursing, instant rivalries, even the absurd victory dance for people that shelled out for the 360 camera. Even on the PS2, I paid extra for a friend's headset just so he and I could shoot the shit while playing Tiger Woods online together and not have to burn all our our cell-phone minutes.
Like EggyToast was alluding to a while back, I think it's a chicken-and-egg situation as far as "Nintendo WFC is good enough for me" and "I don't play a lot of online games anyway." Nintendo's current online endeavors may be enough for a lot of people because they don't play a lot ... but at the same time, maybe they don't play a lot because Nintendo's online hits the limits of what they're used to.
With parental controls, though, I don't see how Nintendo simply couldn't have turned voice or tags or certain things off for certain settings. I mean you can set things in your taunts and stuff so they're not really preventing a whole lot.
"It doesn't cost money!" isn't an excuse. Neither does most online PC gaming. Strangely even most cheap, underfunded developers manage to include online features that kick WFC's ass up and down the aisle..
Don't taunts only work on friend matches?
No, they don't.
Nothing's forgotten, nothing is ever forgotten
Honestly, I can't believe how primitive Nintendo's service seems. This seems like something we came up with in the 1990s and ditched accordingly when superior means of connection came about...except it was made in 2005...and apparently Nintendo thinks it can talk like they know all about online play come E3.
|Xbox Live Tag: Omeks
|PSN Tag: Omeks_R7
|Rock Band: Profile|DLC Collection
90% of games especially on consoles, lose a vast majority of their players quick unless it is a huge title. This is not unique to the Wii or DS.
Served like a motherfucker. I didn't even know that.
In my case, yeah some FFAs have light banter, but when it comes down to competitive 1v1 we are pretty silent since we are so focused on the game. Those are some of the best matches when you are really going at it.
Oh, I know. It just makes the already poor online even worse.
50$ buys me and my roommate enough food for two weeks. Also, we can go get fast food at least once during those two weeks. And none of it is ramen - it's all "real" food.
If the fast food is opted out of, I can stretch it to 3.
They need to except that adults aren't scared of the Internet and there needs to be some way past the friend codes. Allow for a method to verify age for adults to bypass the brick wall Nintendo put up between players. Tada. Then they can sleep at night!
Steamtendo...the things dreams are made of.
The +$50 I can see, if the console comes with a pack-in (which all Wiis do); I'm not seeing the +$10.
I think the idea here is to have something that costs $50 for nearly the whole year as comparison. Which, for me, might be about how much I spend on catnip and fake mice. So there you go -- for the cost of Live, your cat might be that much more likely to walk up and bite you in the leg out of pure boredom.
EDIT: I was thinking about Dirty's $4.62/day over 1.5 years TV again... If we're talking about a $2500 TV then yes, I think it's fair to belittle the $50/year of Live. Especially if it's a once every 1.5 year expense, which probably wasn't the case but really ought to have been if these examples were meant to be non-facetious at all.
I've heard it all:
-I'm too poor to be playing video games if I don't like giving MS the $50 to play online
-I'm an idiot with no understanding of economics (even though it was my minor) if I don't agree that MS is morally obliged to charge for Live.
-I'm probably not really into playing video games in the first place if I don't care much about a rich online multiplayer experience
Honestly, Nintendo's service is pretty horrible, all things considered, but then again, playing Smash Bros. online is hardly more than a bonus to me. If Nintendo wants to make it better, I'd be plenty happy, but I'd just as soon not play if they decide that the only way to do it is to charge for it. And while the pay-to-play service looms, I will be shocked if it is for anything more than allowing third parties to charge and/or for games that require a persistent online presence (read: Animal Crossing Online).
But as somebody said, this only makes it worse. The more effort required to get a decent online game going, the less people will bother. The less people willing to bother, the less players, then the less people willing to bother. Onward into oblivion.
A combination of lobbies and unified friend lists generally seems to give Live games much more staying power...or at least it did back in 2003, when there were even less players. It didn't have to be Halo 3; there were still plenty of people playing Crimson Skies months after release. Same with every other Live title I owned. Then again, maybe there were just less titles back then.
I do know that at the very least the per-game friend codes are a huge detriment to forming any kind of following in games. The number of people who otherwise would be all over some of the online titles who never even bother buying them (and many of the rest who buy the game but never bother with online) has got to be fairly significant. I know that a unified friend list alone would have Brawl on my shelf already, and I'd already have ordered Mario Kart. As it stands I'll likely never buy the latter, and may never buy the former. Without online as a selling point, there are simply other games I want more.
It would have cost them nothing...literally nothing...to offer a single persistent friend code per console rather than per-game codes. That one change alone would have drastically improved the service overall. This isn't about "oh Live is only better because they charge." Nintendo's service isn't worse because it's free, or because they're the "little guy"...it's worse because they actively hate people who want to play online, and feel the need to punish them.
It's not just a matter of finances, but also a matter of convincing your significant other that you should be getting "yet another video game" when you already have a good collection. Since getting married, other than special occasions like birthdays, Christmas, and extra money inflow (tax refunds, bonuses at work), game purchases are few and far between.
I don't think $50 is an unreasonable amount; it just boils down to whether online multiplayer on the 360 is worth that amount to you. Just recently, I got a very nice tax refund, of which me and my wife decided that $300 could be devoted to whatever fun stuff I wanted just for me. In the end, I got:
Lost Odyssey ($60/$60)
Smash Bros. Brawl ($50/$110)
6000 MS points for XBLA purchases ($75/$185)
A year's subscription to GameTap ($60/$245)
A couple discounted PS2 games ($45/$290)
The next volume of a manga I like ($10/$300)
I considered picking up a year of Gold with the $300, but I'm not a huge multiplayer fan and I'd probably only use it a few hours a month at most. In the end, I decided I'd rather have the other stuff I ended up buying.
Zeboyd Games Development Blog
Steam ID : rwb36, Twitter : Werezompire, Facebook : Zeboyd Games
Well, I figure that Wii Sports, the Weather Channel, the News Channel, the Check Mii Out Channel and the Vote Channel can probably total to about 50 bucks.
I think the 10 per game is based around the fact that wii games still cost 50 bucks, vs Sony and Microsoft's 60.
Pokemon Safari - Sneasel, Pawniard, ????
All they had to do was put a filter on the system so you couldn't play online without a password.
And who would they give the password to? What would I have to do? How many people do I need to crush?
Pretty much. There already is a Parental Controls setup that comes standard on the system, so limiting what can and can't happen online from there would be infinitely more user-friendly.
Unfortunately, I think that paranoia about being litigated into oblivion has seeped into much of what Nintendo does these days. Epilepsy warnings every time the system turns on? Warnings about how to use the Wii Remote every time you try to play a game? Obviously Nintendo wants to be as far away as possible from anything that could become a liability.
I'd probably blame our litigious society first before Nintendo on that, though.
Just make it an option for parents to turn on, like the rating filter. Not. Hard. Nintendo is worried about the kids(probably because of lawsuits), but I say fuck kids. What did they ever do for us? All they are doing now is fucking up my online Brawl.
People keep saying that not that many people care about playing Brawl online. I agree. You know why? Because those people knew it was going to suck. I can't even do a stock match. I hate timed matches. How am I suppose to improve my skills if I can't play 1v1? Shitty online features are one of them many reasons I will be skipping out on the new Mario Kart. What arbitrary limits do you suppose they will put on that game?
It's just like those fucking jokers that got all pissed that Mario Party 8 wasn't online. WTF? Mario Party online. Really? HOW FUN WOULD THAT BE? Not fun at all. Even with 4 different friends online it would be lame. I'm glad that my Wii is still focused on group fun and not online play.
I can't even name but maybe one or two games on my 360 that allow 4 people to play at once, and have a blast. And yet on my Wii I can name at least 6. (That's not including GCN games)
Yea, but some of us have jobs and stuff now. I don't have time every night to get a group of friends together to play, but I still want to enjoy the social aspect of the game. I want to hear someone's pained yell when I shove a blue shell up their ass.
And that's a fault of the 360. Local multiplayer and internet multiplayer are not mutually exclusive. Both can exist on the same game.
The main problem I have is that, even assuming friend codes and the general process required to exchange them protects the cornholes of our valuable little ones, there is no reason per-game friend codes were ever needed. Having a single system friend code would serve the exact same purpose. It would cost no more. Not even a little. Think about it: replace the code that manages a game's unique friend code with code that instead loads a systemwide friend code from the onboard memory. Replace code that manages friend lists for individual games with code that instead accesses systemwide friend list. Zero added effort, but a thousand-fold improvement in the WFC online experience.
But like I said, Nintendo hates online gamers and is compelled to make us pay for our transgressions instead.
Because I'm really sick of hearing the argument. There's no reason that adding a halfass-decent WFC experience to Mario Kart means they suddenly have to keep you from playing in the same room together as well.
In theory, they did include that system, since if you have traded Wii System codes with somebody, then individual game codes are traded automatically.
In practice, I'm not sure it really works that way.
I'm pretty sure the argument is going the other way - 360 and PS3 developers are neglecting local multiplayer in favor of online, because for the most part that's the kind of multiplayer that is desired most on those systems. I suppose the same could be said for Nintendo, but well, instead of feeling like we're losing something we've always had (local multiplayer), we're getting a tacked-on/crappy version of something new.
Then you're not trying. Just off the top of my head, the following games are all fantastic in 4 player mode: Bomberman Live, Heavy Weapon, Worms, TMNT, Undertow, Carcasonne, Settlers of Catan, Worms, Tetris Splash, Marvel Ultimate Alliance, Scene It!
Zeboyd Games Development Blog
Steam ID : rwb36, Twitter : Werezompire, Facebook : Zeboyd Games
He's making an exceedingly poor analogy that by getting a Wii, one saves $50 a year that you'd would spend on Live if you got a 360 and $10 per Wii game since you obviously bought a Wii game instead of an 360 game.
SE++ Forum Battle Archive
A steam-like service for their online gaming would be awesome. Hooking up to servers with an actual server list, having access to chat and friends lists via the home menu without exiting a game, setting up voice connections with players in other chat rooms or across games - yes, I really think they do need this. Getting online and finding friends to play with TF2 is just... ridiculously easy. It's as easy as playing a game single player.
Having an online store that's a little more robust than Virtual Console wouldn't hurt either.
And 90% of those are cheap boring games that last maybe an hour. (Aside from Marvel, which was the one I can only think of). Plus I don't see playing 4 player Catan being any fun.
Halo