GameTavern - View Single Post - Editorial: Is Nintendo Serious About Online Gaming

gekko · 06-25-2002, 08:16 AM

Nintendo is not rushing into online gaming because of one reason, it's not profitable.

Let's look at Microsoft. They sre spending billions to get Xbox on the market. Xbox is released and they are taking a hit, profit does not look good. Then they drop the price all around the world. I'd be willing to put money on the fact that MS won't make money on Xbox. Now with online gaming, MS provides all the serversm which will be a lot for the number of games they have planned. And allowing developers to use their servers, well, they take more of a hit. But when we see Xbox 2 roll around, it's time for MS to make some money. I doubt they'll be taking the same approach.

Nintendo looks at it this way. Is it profitable for Nintendo to push online plans? If 10 million copies of Mario Kart sell, will allowing them to play online for years on these servers which need to be maintained make them any money?

Nintendo looks at Sega, who was far more online ready than Sony, Microsoft, and Nintendo combined, and they had it all down at launch. They ran into a big problem with PSO, and we mean big. A year after it's released, there's still 200,000 people playing online! They still are using a ton of servers. There are still GameShark hackers out there, so Sonic Team is still working to patch the servers and ban these bastards.

Think of it this way. For every game that you buy at $50, you are basically paying for the development and publishment of the game, period. So when I bought PSO, that $50 went only to pay the development and publishment of the game. Now Sega had spent thousands to get those servers up, and now a year later, they had to pay the salary of the people who are doing maintenance on the servers, had to get Sonic Team to work to patch it, and they are spending more than they ever planned. Guess what? Sega takes a beating because people are playing the game online.

Now PSOv2 cost $5 a month to play. Nothing if you actually play the game. Xbox Live on the other hand... will MS make any cash at all? $50 has to pay for the headset, and pay Acclaim for including that game. So not much of that $50 is going to pay for MS's servers. On top of that, when it does change over to $10 a month, is that even enough? With Microsoft providing servers for 50 games by the end of next year, they likely won't be profiting at all off of Xbox Live.

Nintendo may not be willing to lose millions to get you guys online, and that's smart. Nintendo has several internal development groups working on online titles, but right now, it's not profitable for online games, and everyone starts bitching when a monthly fee is brought up. If online actually takes off, you may be looking at a new monthly bill coming close to your broadband bill.

PC gaming had online gaming take off for an easy reason, they don't provide the servers, so they don't pay for you to play online. Console's aren't powerful enough to host games, and because of that, it will cost you.

06-25-2002, 08:16 AM	#12
gekko Knight gekko is offline Now Playing: Posts: 3,890	Nintendo is not rushing into online gaming because of one reason, it's not profitable. Let's look at Microsoft. They sre spending billions to get Xbox on the market. Xbox is released and they are taking a hit, profit does not look good. Then they drop the price all around the world. I'd be willing to put money on the fact that MS won't make money on Xbox. Now with online gaming, MS provides all the serversm which will be a lot for the number of games they have planned. And allowing developers to use their servers, well, they take more of a hit. But when we see Xbox 2 roll around, it's time for MS to make some money. I doubt they'll be taking the same approach. Nintendo looks at it this way. Is it profitable for Nintendo to push online plans? If 10 million copies of Mario Kart sell, will allowing them to play online for years on these servers which need to be maintained make them any money? Nintendo looks at Sega, who was far more online ready than Sony, Microsoft, and Nintendo combined, and they had it all down at launch. They ran into a big problem with PSO, and we mean big. A year after it's released, there's still 200,000 people playing online! They still are using a ton of servers. There are still GameShark hackers out there, so Sonic Team is still working to patch the servers and ban these bastards. Think of it this way. For every game that you buy at $50, you are basically paying for the development and publishment of the game, period. So when I bought PSO, that $50 went only to pay the development and publishment of the game. Now Sega had spent thousands to get those servers up, and now a year later, they had to pay the salary of the people who are doing maintenance on the servers, had to get Sonic Team to work to patch it, and they are spending more than they ever planned. Guess what? Sega takes a beating because people are playing the game online. Now PSOv2 cost $5 a month to play. Nothing if you actually play the game. Xbox Live on the other hand... will MS make any cash at all? $50 has to pay for the headset, and pay Acclaim for including that game. So not much of that $50 is going to pay for MS's servers. On top of that, when it does change over to $10 a month, is that even enough? With Microsoft providing servers for 50 games by the end of next year, they likely won't be profiting at all off of Xbox Live. Nintendo may not be willing to lose millions to get you guys online, and that's smart. Nintendo has several internal development groups working on online titles, but right now, it's not profitable for online games, and everyone starts bitching when a monthly fee is brought up. If online actually takes off, you may be looking at a new monthly bill coming close to your broadband bill. PC gaming had online gaming take off for an easy reason, they don't provide the servers, so they don't pay for you to play online. Console's aren't powerful enough to host games, and because of that, it will cost you.