Please, please explain to me how people can defend no online at this day and age

#81XinundraPosted 12/12/2012 3:58:55 PM
Nice_Kirbyfan9 posted...
From: Baha05 | #073
Nice_Kirbyfan9 posted...
So like I said before, you arguing an issue nobody brought up? Who said online magically solves all issues with multiplayer?


"Indeed. But that is not always possible, online would solve this problem."

You did, by claiming that it solves the problem, which isn't true at all because again even with online you'd still have to plan a date when you and a bunch of friends want to play a game together.

Like I said before, do not join in a conversation if you do not know what the people are talking about.

The Quote:
Indeed. But that is not always possible, online would solve this problem.


Was in direct response to this quote:
However having them over at your place and playing Nintendo land is a great thing to do once a week.


By "this problem" I am referring to the fact that is not possible to get friends to come to my house. As I have said before my friends live across the country so playing online solves the problem of us not all being able to meet at a house.

Do you finally understand it?


No matter if its online or offline.. There always a problem getting all your friends together to have fun and play.

It's not a problem for you to have your friends to come online and play with you and it also not a problem for me to have my friends to come over my place and play.
#82xerofyre0Posted 12/12/2012 4:06:05 PM
ummmm wouldnt online play ruin the fun of the asynchronous play? i do think it needs leaderboards though, badly
---
Free Game Giveaway-
http://www.down-rightfierce.com/2012/06/free-game-giveaway-club-nintendo.html
#83NyyarkPosted 12/12/2012 4:13:27 PM
MegaWinFTW posted...

It's not so much a personal attack as it is an analysis of why you're seemingly so against something that would do nothing but improve things. Any game with multiplayer would benefit from having online options, what exactly is the difference between some friends getting together to play a game like this together and friends who don't live close enough to actually meet up for such a purpose doing so online? How are those demographics so wildly different? Most adults should be able to relate to such scenarios, why defend the decision to not allow anyone who doesn't have enough friends who are both interested in playing and live close enough to play locally to enjoy the multiplayer?


Well, any options in a game cost money. That means either a game costs more money, or they rob Peter to pay Paul.

There never has been a large demographic of people clamoring for online multiplayer in a mini-game compilation. So why spend that money?

Companies spend money to make money. Sometimes it works for you, sometimes it doesn't, but it always works for the largest consumer base. If Nintendo Land had online I'd probably try it, but it's not going to make a difference for my purchase either way, and if history holds true, its the same for the bulk of mini game compilation buyers.

It looks like that money is best spend in attachments (motion plus/ Wii Sports resort, extra controllers like in Wii Play, the Zapper in Link's Crossbow Training), add ons (Wii Balance board in wii fit) , and bundles (like Wii Sports and Nintendo Land), because that seems to be what drives mini-game compilations.

When you disagree with me I ask for the foundations of your reasoning. What data has led you to your conclusion. When I disagree with you you assert that I must be flawed, and that flaw is affecting my reasoning. Perhaps you should take the advice you're giving me and assess why you have such a strong emotional investment in believing Nintendo is making stupid decisions.

I would actually change me position on this topic if someone could show me with data where online multiplayer has significantly increased the sales of a mini-game compilation.

Until then I see no reason that anything other than, "sucks to be in the minority TC, feel for ya" makes sense to say.
#84MegaWinFTWPosted 12/12/2012 4:32:28 PM
Nyyark posted...
MegaWinFTW posted...

It's not so much a personal attack as it is an analysis of why you're seemingly so against something that would do nothing but improve things. Any game with multiplayer would benefit from having online options, what exactly is the difference between some friends getting together to play a game like this together and friends who don't live close enough to actually meet up for such a purpose doing so online? How are those demographics so wildly different? Most adults should be able to relate to such scenarios, why defend the decision to not allow anyone who doesn't have enough friends who are both interested in playing and live close enough to play locally to enjoy the multiplayer?


Well, any options in a game cost money. That means either a game costs more money, or they rob Peter to pay Paul.

There never has been a large demographic of people clamoring for online multiplayer in a mini-game compilation. So why spend that money?

Companies spend money to make money. Sometimes it works for you, sometimes it doesn't, but it always works for the largest consumer base. If Nintendo Land had online I'd probably try it, but it's not going to make a difference for my purchase either way, and if history holds true, its the same for the bulk of mini game compilation buyers.

It looks like that money is best spend in attachments (motion plus/ Wii Sports resort, extra controllers like in Wii Play, the Zapper in Link's Crossbow Training), add ons (Wii Balance board in wii fit) , and bundles (like Wii Sports and Nintendo Land), because that seems to be what drives mini-game compilations.

When you disagree with me I ask for the foundations of your reasoning. What data has led you to your conclusion. When I disagree with you you assert that I must be flawed, and that flaw is affecting my reasoning. Perhaps you should take the advice you're giving me and assess why you have such a strong emotional investment in believing Nintendo is making stupid decisions.

I would actually change me position on this topic if someone could show me with data where online multiplayer has significantly increased the sales of a mini-game compilation.

Until then I see no reason that anything other than, "sucks to be in the minority TC, feel for ya" makes sense to say.


The amount adding online options to an already multiplayer centric game would cost is negligible.

I'm seeing plenty of people complaining about the lack of online here, there is a demand for it and there's no excuse for Nintendo not to acknowledge it.

It doesn't always "work for the largest consumer base", that implies that these companies are essentially infallible, you yourself highlighted further examples of Nintendo neglecting to add online options to games that could have benefited greatly from them.

What you're asking for is ridiculous, mini-game compilations haven't been particularly common since the rise of online multiplayer and the only notable examples are only on Nintendo systems which is a company that is notoriously and needlessly suspicious of fully embracing the online space. If you desperately want an example then how about SSB? It's best played locally, it's generally a bit of a party game, however online was a major request and the poor quality of Brawl's online was the biggest complaint made against it. When PSAS was announced there were a lot of very happy people that a similar game would be available with more functional online. If you're really going to deny that there is a sizeable demographic who would benefit from having online multiplayer in Nintendo Land then I honestly don't see any way to continue this line of discussion because it's such an obvious thing.
#85LordBowserPosted 12/12/2012 4:38:03 PM
We can't, and we shouldn't.

This is the one real problem Nintendo has, their obsession with fighting against online multiplayer. Being able to play NSMBU and Nintendo Land with friends should be possible online. It's ridiculous that it's still not possible in this day and age.

For Pikmin 3 they've claimed that it's not viable because of the pikmin animations, but I really don't see the issue. It should work fine, if there are some minor graphic or animation bugs with the Pikmin now and then, it's a small price to pay. That said, my experience here is pretty limited so there may be bigger issues.

Either way, NSMBU and Nintendo Land have zero excuses.
---
I am Lord Bowser, King of the Koopas! Bwahaha..
Playing Bowser on Mario Kart, and Noxus on Metroid Prime. I am not a cookie cutter!
#86NyyarkPosted 12/12/2012 4:53:20 PM
MegaWinFTW posted...


The amount adding online options to an already multiplayer centric game would cost is negligible.

You feel this way? You have experience in game development? Where are you pulling this information from? I base my assertion from the many dev comments that I've seen such as this one,
http://blog.us.playstation.com/2012/09/27/killzone-hd-re-developer-interview-part-1/

+ Victor Zuylen on September 27th, 2012 at 7:47 am said:
Itís not so much a matter of reverse engineering as writing new network code to work with the current PlayStation Network. In addition, setting up and maintaining a multiplayer server for Killzone HD would have driven the cost of this project beyond feasibility, so we opted to do without.



I'm seeing plenty of people complaining about the lack of online here, there is a demand for it and there's no excuse for Nintendo not to acknowledge it.

And I'm seeing plenty not complaining about it. Both are anecdotal and equally useless as a source. I'm not going into statistics or logic right now, but I hope you understand why.


It doesn't always "work for the largest consumer base", that implies that these companies are essentially infallible, you yourself highlighted further examples of Nintendo neglecting to add online options to games that could have benefited greatly from them.


It does. The free market takes away money and user-base from the ones who screw up. In the end the needs of the largest group are always served. There is no data showing that Nintendo Land is us being in such a transition. The lackluster sales of Star Fox 64 could indicate that, or they could indicate a weak franchise. I would say the argument would be much stronger for that series. Nintendo certainly won't be the go to name in spaceship shooters any time soon unless they get their act together.


What you're asking for is ridiculous, mini-game compilations haven't been particularly common since the rise of online multiplayer and the only notable examples are only on Nintendo systems which is a company that is notoriously and needlessly suspicious of fully embracing the online space. If you desperately want an example then how about SSB? It's best played locally, it's generally a bit of a party game, however online was a major request and the poor quality of Brawl's online was the biggest complaint made against it. When PSAS was announced there were a lot of very happy people that a similar game would be available with more functional online. If you're really going to deny that there is a sizeable demographic who would benefit from having online multiplayer in Nintendo Land then I honestly don't see any way to continue this line of discussion because it's such an obvious thing.


I would think comparing the highly successful SSBB with the low success of All-Stars might be a bad plan when arguing a feature of All-Stars. If anything it shows that Nintendo called it right when choosing where to invest the money. Their online sucked horridly though, I'll grant you that.

What I ask is not unreasonable given your assertions, it's just impossible given reality. Your assertions imply you should be able to provide some kind of data that would satisfy my request, because they seem to be founded on some kind of data existing.

If you were debating that Nintendo might be able to be quite a bit more successful if they had online I'd totally grant you that. Maybe they would. Maybe all it would take is a combination of Nintendo minigames and online multiplayer. There is no data either way. I feel this isn't the truth, but I have no data to think it, or make any rational arguments against it. This is different than arguing Nintendo is stupid, I hope you see why.
#87Board_hunter567Posted 12/12/2012 4:59:37 PM
Considering Nintendo Land's heavy use of the GamePad as a second screen, I'd wager it was more of a technical issue (mainly the fear of game-breaking lag).

Could be wrong though. Doesn't excuse NSMBU.
#88KevinCCPosted 12/12/2012 5:03:05 PM
Not every game needs online.

I'd actually -buy- some of those MMORPGs if they had single-player options... hence why I own Phantasy Star Online for the Gamecube and not Final Fantasy XI/XIV or WoW for any system.
---
...as opposed to an average game.
#89WiiFan77Posted 12/12/2012 5:08:50 PM
I don't give a damn about playing a game online.
---
Official Neko Shogun of the Shin Megami Tensei IV board.
#90cavebear56Posted 12/12/2012 5:11:23 PM
In all factual truth, not every game needs multiplayer.

Now to the actual topic.

Not all multiplayer games need to have online but I do agree the option is preferred.

Options should always be appreciated. Though I would say more games need to stop neglecting local split screen more.

Options are always nice and I can understand as I have friends on many different continents that I still game with (both locally, when I'm visiting or due to work, and online).

Scheduling helps, unless all you do is work (which I have been there. When I was young I spent most of my time just working to get where I'm at now) so it's harder there but even then still manageable.

Even then (and with some still now) we have get togethers (with many friends who had budding families) involving local play. That comes down to planning and most importantly the actual desire to do it.

Sometimes the experience for a game relies on a certain aspect (say online, co op inclusion, or even local gameplay) and extending that outwards does allow for a different experience but not one they're looking for.

It would appear Nintendoland was aiming for an experience where people actually get together to catch up and play. Rather than spending times navigating sub menus looking for people to play a short match, games being interrupted from random "hold on guys!phone...or even prior plans with the hope of squeezing a quick game in and dealing with poor connections/lag/drops.

It could be possible that they were aiming at a more personal experience for those that know one another in the same environment so they could enjoy it together.

TL;DR

It's logical, easy and reasonable to understand why/how you can defend no online in this day and age. I don't agree with that view but it seems TC you lack proper understanding, so go read the message above this.
---
If history is to change, let it change. If the world is to be destroyed, so be it. If my fate is to die, I must simply laugh.