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

#91MegaWinFTWPosted 12/12/2012 4:11:57 PM
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,

Well seeing how common online multiplayer is it clearly isn't the massive stumbling block you set it up to be. As for Killzone HD, that was a HD re-release of an old game, they would have been given a particularly small budget for that and it would have been a pointless effort since both KZ2 and 3 multiplayers are still running and are far superior.


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's a very common criticism, you can't just stick your fingers in your ears and pretend the demand isn't there.


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.

Nintendo Land is a launch title available for a system that doesn't really have much other compelling software available right now, it would have to sell decently due to a sheer lack of competition. It doesn't mean it has served the largest demographic possible absolutely perfectly, your logic here is just dumbfounding.


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.

All-Stars is actually not doing that badly at all and you honestly think the pathetic attempt at online the was offered in Brawl was a good decision? I genuinely wonder why I'm even bothering here if you actually think 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.


My assertions are based on basic common sense. A game is multiplayer-centirc, online multiplayer is wildly popular and common to the point that it's almost a requirement for any game that would suit it, ergo the multiplayer-centric game would benefit from offering this basic, common, popular feature. Splitting hairs and making claims about the demographics of specific genres that you can't back up yourself due to general rarity of such games is just petty and frankly reeks of excuse making. You could have made the same argument after Melee was released regarding party brawlers, the fact that the series would benefit from (functional) online multiplayer was and is just obvious. You must at least admit it's worth trying.

Besides, the main crux of my argument has been that it would improve the experience for many people regardless of whether you personally would use it or not. I care considerably less about Nintendo's profits than I do about how good an experience the actual players have.
#92darkjedilinkPosted 12/12/2012 4:19:52 PM
Nobody has yet to give a clear and unarguable reason as to why online multiplayer ABSOLUTELY MUST be a part of any game with a multiplayer component. Until you can DO that, saying anything is indefensible is pure BS.
---
Gaming is like a pair of boobs - Sony and Microsoft fight over whos boobs look more realistic, while Nintendo is about having fun with them - Walkiethrougie
#93RyuuHou25Posted 12/12/2012 4:22:43 PM
"And it's not a matter of allocating resources fully to local multiplayer either. That's not how the industry works. Play any modern game with online multiplayer, and you'll plainly see that the local and online multiplayer are almost identical. In development, you don't design the multiplayers as separate entities, you create one multiplayer, and once it's completed, you then implement the ability for it to play locally or connect to a server. Nintendo doesn't seem to understand that, and neither does anyone who defends their position either."

Definitely goes on my list of stupidest things I've read on the internet, EVER
---
PSN ID: RyuuHou24
"I never said that....and even if I said it, I never said it" - Dr Peter Venkman RGB
#94MegaWinFTWPosted 12/12/2012 4:24:08 PM
darkjedilink posted...
Nobody has yet to give a clear and unarguable reason as to why online multiplayer ABSOLUTELY MUST be a part of any game with a multiplayer component. Until you can DO that, saying anything is indefensible is pure BS.


This is quite frankly a pathetic cop out. Why MUST any game have multiplayer at all, why MUST games be made full stop?

Not everyone has friends who are local enough to utilise local multiplayer, online eliminates this problem and provides a much better experience for millions of people in such situations. If you can't comprehend this then nothing will ever get through to you.
#95NyyarkPosted 12/12/2012 4:29:18 PM
MegaWinFTW posted...
I care considerably less about Nintendo's profits than I do about how good an experience the actual players have.



Nintendo would be stupid to be in agreement with that consideration though wouldn't they?

I think there are a ton of mini game compilations last gen. Activision and Ubisoft both made a horrid amount of them. I'd be hard pressed to say if they had online or not because I never bothered to look. I doubt the people who weren't me that bought carnival games six did either.

Did Rockband have alot more success after doing Online? I think that'd be good data that might back you up. Not exactly mini game, but casual for sure, and big on local multiplayer.

Anyways it sounds like you're saying it sucks that Nintendo limited our options as to what sort of tie in game came with the deluxe. I agree. I wish we'd had a core gamer option like Japan and Europe did. Obviously they didn't think any sort of bundle would entice enough additional core gamer purchases to make up for whatever sales they'd get selling the software alone.

NSMB should have online, I'd totally agree with that. Even though it would be massively difficult to get good net code on a tight platformer and not have more compromises than they did to make it multiplayer in the first place. I'd be with anyone there (unless we're attacking someone who disagrees, again there isn't any real data to back the position.)

Maybe Rayman will end up having Online after all and show nintendo the error of their ways.
#96RyuuHou25Posted 12/12/2012 4:35:45 PM
MegaWinFTW posted...
darkjedilink posted...
Nobody has yet to give a clear and unarguable reason as to why online multiplayer ABSOLUTELY MUST be a part of any game with a multiplayer component. Until you can DO that, saying anything is indefensible is pure BS.


This is quite frankly a pathetic cop out. Why MUST any game have multiplayer at all, why MUST games be made full stop?

Not everyone has friends who are local enough to utilise local multiplayer, online eliminates this problem and provides a much better experience for millions of people in such situations. If you can't comprehend this then nothing will ever get through to you.


"Not everyone has friends who are local enough"

People need to get out of the ******* house more then. Go have some actual human contact and interaction for christ sake.
---
PSN ID: RyuuHou24
"I never said that....and even if I said it, I never said it" - Dr Peter Venkman RGB
#97AnderjakPosted 12/12/2012 4:37:37 PM
It's because of Japan. No, seriously. Japanese gamers don't value online as heavily as Western gamers. It's the reason why Streetpass for the 3DS was designed the way it was -- because of the sheer amount of people on subways who would cross paths regularly. You could easily cap out your Streetpass folks in just a few minutes in certain areas. Apart from a certain handful of games, Japanese gamers simply don't play online nearly to the same capacity. Nintendo has ALWAYS designed with Japanese gamers in mind -- heck, it's only halfway through the current generation that Japanese developers really started making a huge, significant push toward online.

It's a cultural difference, at the end of the day. I'm not saying it's necessarily a good or bad thing. It's just what it is.
---
An elephant is a mouse built to government specifications.
#98LordBowserPosted 12/12/2012 4:38:16 PM
KevinCC posted...
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.


There is no negative effect for any game having an online mode with friends. Ever. Not everyone has 4 local friends who want to hang out with them regularly, being able to play online and long distance with friends would be a major bonus, period.

Secondly, PSO is not an MMORPG. Every time I see this, it pisses me off. This is a major pet peeve for me. It's an Online RPG with lobbies. It was a great game, but it was not an MMORPG. It's no more an MMORPG than the Torchlight or Diablo series.
---
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!
#99motorazrv3xxxPosted 12/12/2012 4:38:30 PM
RyuuHou25 posted...
MegaWinFTW posted...
darkjedilink posted...
Nobody has yet to give a clear and unarguable reason as to why online multiplayer ABSOLUTELY MUST be a part of any game with a multiplayer component. Until you can DO that, saying anything is indefensible is pure BS.


This is quite frankly a pathetic cop out. Why MUST any game have multiplayer at all, why MUST games be made full stop?

Not everyone has friends who are local enough to utilise local multiplayer, online eliminates this problem and provides a much better experience for millions of people in such situations. If you can't comprehend this then nothing will ever get through to you.


"Not everyone has friends who are local enough"

People need to get out of the ******* house more then. Go have some actual human contact and interaction for christ sake.


Please tell me this post wasn't serious. PLEASE...
---
"When I'm about to do something, I ask myself: Would an idiot do that?
And if they would, I do not do that thing." -Dwight K. Schrute
#100MegaWinFTWPosted 12/12/2012 4:40:33 PM
Nyyark posted...
MegaWinFTW posted...
I care considerably less about Nintendo's profits than I do about how good an experience the actual players have.



Nintendo would be stupid to be in agreement with that consideration though wouldn't they?

I think there are a ton of mini game compilations last gen. Activision and Ubisoft both made a horrid amount of them. I'd be hard pressed to say if they had online or not because I never bothered to look. I doubt the people who weren't me that bought carnival games six did either.

Did Rockband have alot more success after doing Online? I think that'd be good data that might back you up. Not exactly mini game, but casual for sure, and big on local multiplayer.

Anyways it sounds like you're saying it sucks that Nintendo limited our options as to what sort of tie in game came with the deluxe. I agree. I wish we'd had a core gamer option like Japan and Europe did. Obviously they didn't think any sort of bundle would entice enough additional core gamer purchases to make up for whatever sales they'd get selling the software alone.

NSMB should have online, I'd totally agree with that. Even though it would be massively difficult to get good net code on a tight platformer and not have more compromises than they did to make it multiplayer in the first place. I'd be with anyone there (unless we're attacking someone who disagrees, again there isn't any real data to back the position.)

Maybe Rayman will end up having Online after all and show nintendo the error of their ways.


Actually it's not that bad a policy to have, within reason of course. If you focus on providing the best product possible without spending an irrational amount in doing so then you get happier consumers who are more inclined to continue supporting them. Nintendo might have a lot of fanboys but they can't carry them alone and they're suffering from a pretty big image crisis right now, especially amongst the core market. Their continued hesitation to add online doesn't help this. While I maintain that it's obvious that NL would benefit from online you must agree that due to the lack of games in that genre it would at the very least be worth experimenting with online multiplayer for it, no?

Rockband is hard to judge due to the ridiculous oversaturation of music rhythm games around that time, they, or rather Activision with GH, dried up the market quite rapidly with the number of releases being made but I would imagine the online was worthwhile, otherwise they'd have shut it down quite quickly.

I honestly want Nintendo to really understand online, I can only hope that now they have a decent enough infrastructure that they'll make more effort to actually utilise it and get over their bizarre fear of it.