Online gaming

[TheGame]

Do you think it's:

1) Profitable now, but not going to be profitable in the long run
2) Not profitable now, and will continue to be worthless in the long run
3) Profitable now and in the long run
4) Not Profitable now, but will be in the long run

chose one and give reasons.

[Jonbo298]

I choose 4. Mainly because online CONSOLE gaming is new and I really don't see much of a profit yet. Microsoft can claim they are making a profit, but I just don't see it happening at the time. Any other company can say it to just so that I'm not being biased to just M$. In the future, it will be more profitable when more companies take advantage of it and find ways to make it cheaper, faster, and more efficient. And when the day comes that Broadband is a much larger user base/standard, it will profit a lot more. No more lag!:D

[Perfect Stu]

I don't know the facts about online gaming profits, so I don't know how to answer the question...

I assume you mean only console online gaming, and so I doubt it's profitable as of today. I am a believer of online gaming though...and I don't see how it can't be profitable in the future when the demand will be there (IMO). I don't think monthly fees will work out in the near future, but maybe a different system like charging extra for online-oriented games, which would force companies who run servers to develop high quality online games themselves (and charge royalties to developers who utilize those servers).

Whatever the case, I think it can work out quite well, and will be a huge part of future console gaming.

[GameMaster]

2) Not profitable now, and will continue to be worthless in the long run

Broadband is a necessary for smooth, good online play and not everyone has that. And no one wants to pay a monthly fee. We paid for the game, that's it. We're not going to shell out $10 a month to continue playing online, or at least I'm not. When every home is equipped with a high speed internet connection, and playing your games online is free, online gaming will be successful.

[DarkMaster]

I enjoy online gaming, I'd like to see it used more with consoles. Especially with companies that could make some amazing online games (I'm looking at you Nintendo).

I dont know if it's profitable or not right now, but in the long run, it should most definitely be profitable. Eventually, more and more people will move to broadbrand, so that isnt too much of an issue. Online fees are a pain, but not all online games require them, and those that do usually provide better service online. It wont be a problem for me, as I will have a job, and for those that don't have so much cash to spend, I guess they can only hope that companies will eventually start to charge less for online fees (which I'm sure they will, eventually).

[GameKinG]

I dont think its profitable now, but will be in the long run. I say this because I havent heard of any profit made, but If MS and sony continue the same service without spending TOO much, they will likely get something.

[Crono]

It depends really. Games like FFXI that require a $100 + Hard Drive, the Network Adapter, Keyboard/Controller + monthly fees aren't going to make much profits. I doubt the cost that it took to make the game would break even, well eventually yes, maybe after like 4 years. Although I'm at finances expert so then again I could be wrong. But if one person needs to spend $400 just to get started, plus monthly fees, then I dont see how it can rake in good profits.

However, if you have more games that don't require online fees (FPS', racing, fighting, all good games to play online), and instead just offer a service package like Xbox Live and give the consumers a full year free or something, then I can see that going somewhere. But then again not everyone has a credit card, which I think is the downfall of online games. Isn't there such thing as online debit that allows the company to directly withdraw from your bank account? I don't know the details but it sounds good.

So overall, I think it really depends on what is being offered to the consumer. It could either make the company money or make them lose money.

[Perfect Stu]

Online gaming is a big plus for the gamer...while companies don't make much money from it at the moment, they should give the damned thing a chance...lots of gamers love it, and if it is a devastating financial blow to the company, they can pull out of it when they have to (it certainly hasn't killed Microsoft, or dethroned Sony). If a console manufacturing company can't afford to give their consumers the complete gaming experience, then they should stick to developing games for systems that can give the consumer the complete gaming experience.

Nintendo fans:

You don't work for or own any stock in Nintendo, so why should you care if they take a little financial hit in order to present you with an online gaming experience? If at any time you think "meh, who cares about online gaming on PS2 and XBox, those companies are losing some money" just remember there will be thousands of gamers who will be enjoying the hell out of online PS2 and XBox titles. Oh, and I bet we'd all love to play some Mario Kart online, too...

[gekko]

4) Not Profitable now, but will be in the long run

It's definetly not profitable now, don't think anyone will argue that.

In the long run, dedicated servers and subscriptions will likely be the norm. Subscriptions can bring in some profits. But keep in mind, SOME profits, 95% of the income is still likely to come from the sale of the game.

[gekko]

Stu please. Ever hear of R&D? Costs money. Developing games? Oh ya, that costs money as well. The more money Nintendo has, means the better experience for the gamer. People care about Nintendo's financial situation because Nintendo's profits are what lead to new developments. If Nintendo was struggeling, they would stick to what works, and what is sure to sell, and we wouldn't see anything new. Look at Sega if you don't believe me.

And as for your question, no, I would not like to play Mario Kart online for Gamecube. I personally would not want the experience ruined by a poor online experience. Nintendo has a certain level of quality they are expected to live up to, and I expect to see that online and offline.

Maybe you've been living under a rock for the past few months, but the PS2 and Xbox online experience isn't great, it's just better than nothing. Better than nothing hardly means good. Now Xbox Live kicks the hell out of what PS2 can offer, but Xbox Live has a list of its own problems. Nintendo fans have grown to expect perfection with Nintendo's games, and they will expect perfection with Nintendo's online games as well. Perfection is something they cannot offer this generation.

[Joeiss]

Originally posted by gekko

Maybe you've been living under a rock for the past few months, but the PS2 and Xbox online experience isn't great, it's just better than nothing. Better than nothing hardly means good. Now Xbox Live kicks the hell out of what PS2 can offer, but Xbox Live has a list of its own problems. Nintendo fans have grown to expect perfection with Nintendo's games, and they will expect perfection with Nintendo's online games as well. Perfection is something they cannot offer this generation.



I couldn't agree more. I mean, with SOCOM, I have LOTS OF FUN!!! But there are so many things wrong with the game, I don't even know where to start. I am happy with it because it is the only online game I play, and of course it is better than nothing. Lots of lag.... It seriously takes 7 hits to kill people sometimes.. lol...

For a well known game like Mario Kart, I would say for sure wait for next generation. I look at all online games this generation as the testing grounds for next generation of consoles. The crappiness now is for a better tomorrow, lol.

[Perfect Stu]

Originally posted by gekko
Stu please. Ever hear of R&D? Costs money. Developing games? Oh ya, that costs money as well. The more money Nintendo has, means the better experience for the gamer. People care about Nintendo's financial situation because Nintendo's profits are what lead to new developments. If Nintendo was struggeling, they would stick to what works, and what is sure to sell, and we wouldn't see anything new. Look at Sega if you don't believe me.

And as for your question, no, I would not like to play Mario Kart online for Gamecube. I personally would not want the experience ruined by a poor online experience. Nintendo has a certain level of quality they are expected to live up to, and I expect to see that online and offline.

Maybe you've been living under a rock for the past few months, but the PS2 and Xbox online experience isn't great, it's just better than nothing. Better than nothing hardly means good. Now Xbox Live kicks the hell out of what PS2 can offer, but Xbox Live has a list of its own problems. Nintendo fans have grown to expect perfection with Nintendo's games, and they will expect perfection with Nintendo's online games as well. Perfection is something they cannot offer this generation.

WTF? How would an extra online mode hurt the offline gameplay?

Maybe you could pull your head out of your own ass for a while and consider that your opinion is simply that: your opinion. Hundreds of thousands of gamers bought NA's and XBL starter kits for a reason, and that isn't because they have ****loads of money to waste on videogames like yourself.

If Nintendo fans have grown to expect perfection, then there is something wrong. There either a) aren't enough disappointed Nintendo fans or b) is a new definition of 'perfection' to which I am not familiar with.

And if you don't think online gaming is worth anything, quit playing them. Don't touch an online version of MotoGP, enjoy yourself, and then come here and play Devil's Advocate. Grow a set and go one way or the other...

[gekko]

Stu, I have no intention of debating this with you. If you don't understand, or more likely choose not to understand, so be it. My point was explained clearly, either take it or leave it. I don't have time to deal with your stubborness.

[Perfect Stu]

Originally posted by gekko
Stu, I have no intention of debating this with you. If you don't understand, or more likely choose not to understand, so be it. My point was explained clearly, either take it or leave it. I don't have time to deal with your stubborness.

Listen, I understand your point...but you can't state your views as facts in order to officially defy anything I have to say...

I would never have touched SOCOM if it wasn't for the online play...so I enjoyed the hell out of it for about 3-4 months solely because of online play. If that doesn't prove that online play adds a LOT to some games to some people, I don't know what does.

I'm sick of being shot down everytime I say something about Nintendo. I used to be a huge Nintendo fan, and I still really like some of their games, but I'm frustrated with the way they've been going about their business over the past few years. I've had to read over tons of cheap shots at Sony, PS2, Microsoft and Xbox over the past couple of years on these boards...the swing sways in both directions, and even the thought of these forums being truely multiconsole has been a joke thus far...

but nevermind...this will be my last reply in the thread

[nWoCHRISnWo]

Originally posted by Perfect Stu
the swing sways in both directions, and even the thought of these forums being truely multiconsole has been a joke thus far...

but nevermind...this will be my last reply in the thread

You seem kinda paranoid about this forum being not so multi-console... What cheap shots are made at Sony anyway? And check out the topic directly beneath this one (One Console), just as many people said they'd keep their PS2/X-Box over their Gamecube. Most of the time when good Gamecube/GC game sells are shown, there are a bunch of people saying "I doubt it will last" and whatever, I don't see how this is as much a Nintendo fansite only as you seem to think it is.

[tarakan69]

Not profitable now...

A niche market that will relay on hardcore gamers. Also many people who go online the first year will not go for a second year. Many people don't even use their X-Box live accounts anymore... same will go for GCN/PS2 online services.

[TheGame]

Originally posted by nWoCHRISnWo
You seem kinda paranoid about this forum being not so multi-console... What cheap shots are made at Sony anyway? And check out the topic directly beneath this one (One Console), just as many people said they'd keep their PS2/X-Box over their Gamecube. Most of the time when good Gamecube/GC game sells are shown, there are a bunch of people saying "I doubt it will last" and whatever, I don't see how this is as much a Nintendo fansite only as you seem to think it is.

I gotta agree... but it still seems to be a Nintendo site still.

Nintendo threads on average get 5-10 times the amount of replies of a Ps2 topic with the same magnitude of news. But, like you said, peeps do come around and talk crap about the cube a lot more than anything.

[tarakan69]

Originally posted by TheGame
I gotta agree... but it still seems to be a Nintendo site still.

Nintendo threads on average get 5-10 times the amount of replies of a Ps2 topic with the same magnitude of news. But, like you said, peeps do come around and talk crap about the cube a lot more than anything.

Well it IS a Nintendo based site... I come here to talk about the GCN. If I want to talk about the PS2/X-Box I go to other forums.

Of course it's going to be dominated by GCN posts... even when some people have more intrest in other consoles.

[Joeiss]

Back to online... Um, I'll use SOCOM as an example. I think that Stu's point on how the fact that there was an online mode was the only reason that many people bought SOCOM. With that said, I do think that if there was not an online mode, the developers would have either a) released the game alot earlier or b) added so much more depth and action and levels to the game because they would have to make the replayability factor in the single player mode, not the multiplayer online mode.

[gekko]

Originally posted by Perfect Stu
Listen, I understand your point...but you can't state your views as facts in order to officially defy anything I have to say...

I never stated anything as fact in there. As for the post you're replying to, I am saying I have no intention of arguing with you, especially not after a reply like that. I'm not saying I'm right, you're wrong, but half of your reply had nothing to do with what I said, and for the other half I would just be quoting myself from my last post. Take it or leave it, I just had no plans to rewrite it.

I would never have touched SOCOM if it wasn't for the online play...so I enjoyed the hell out of it for about 3-4 months solely because of online play. If that doesn't prove that online play adds a LOT to some games to some people, I don't know what does.

Online adds to the multiplayer experience, I never denied that.

I'm sick of being shot down everytime I say something about Nintendo.

With the cheap shot you took at Nintendo, you deserved it. And with a comment like that, you can't even begin to talk about these forums being multiconsole. Saying stuff like that is part of the problems. You can't expect to go around shouting anti-Nintendo views and have everyone else sit back and stay quiet. It doesn't work that way. Gamecube fans will take shots back and you start a flame war.

[bobcat]

Originally posted by Perfect Stu


but nevermind...this will be my last reply in the thread :beerchug:

[Perfect Stu]

Originally posted by bobcat
:beerchug:

I lied. But don't worry, you won't see me around here much anymore :)

[BreakABone]

Wow this has turned into an interesting little debate here, but I guess cooler heads will prevail.

As for my views on online gaming, I think it be profitable in the long run, but who knows when. I mean no one seems to be able to turn a profit on that thing Sony,, MS, EA, Sega and they all seem to be taking different routes to it. Maybe someone will strike gold, but for the time being, I think it's more of a novelty than a necessity for the expense/risk factor.