Would you pay Nintendo for its online content?

[TheGrandMom]

Nintendo could charge for online - Miyamoto
By Brendan Sinclair, GameSpot Posted May 7, 2010 2:47 pm PT

Mario creator suggests publisher needs to solidify business plan for multiplayer and other connected features.



Since the Wii launched, Nintendo has kept the system's basic online functionality completely free. However, the company might not be married to that business model. In an interview with Edge, Nintendo senior managing director and Mario creator Shigeru Miyamoto addressed Nintendo's online plans, suggesting that the company needs to get its online act together.


Miyamoto suggests Nintendo's online business could be better orchestrated.
"Probably the other thing that we are desperate to realize is the core [online] business structure," Miyamoto said. "Do we need to demand customers pay monthly fees to enjoy online activities? Or give an online subscription that is free of charge, but then offer something extra for people that pay, so that they get some extra value? With these core business strategies, I think we are less active than we should be."

However, Miyamoto did defend Nintendo's online efforts to date, noting that the company wants its consoles to be connected online constantly. He also acknowledged that the company "hasn't been very proactive" when it comes to segments like the massively multiplayer online genre, but said the company has implemented online features well in areas "where we can provide our customers with more fun and entertainment."

Nintendo's approach to online gaming has been a subject of much discussion since the days of the GameCube. A week before the system's 2001 North American launch, Miyamoto said Nintendo would only enter the online business when the market is ready. The company's stance toward online remained essentially unchanged until the announcement of the Wii. A Nintendo of America executive in 2002 dismissed connected gaming as "a niche area," and company president Satoru Iwata in 2004 bluntly stated, "customers do not want online games."

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Seems like they need to beef it up considerably before I would pay to play. I'm even wishy washy on paying for PS3's online content and thats scads better, imo.

[cidbahamut]

Re: Would you pay Nintendo for its online content?

No. Just no.

[Omgwtfbbqkitten]

Re: Would you pay Nintendo for its online content?

There are things I'd change about NIntendo's online structure, but there are other things I would not.

I do not like how Sony and MS have allowed developers to get out-of-control on download content, which many developers just use as a means to short customers on content so they can make an extra sale. Namco isn't even subtle about and wants you to pay for content that's already on the disc.

That has to be forbidden. I don't want any of this "online pass" crap either. Nintendo needs to give developers incentives to add value to their online-enabled games instead of giving consumers the shaft as they so very much like to do right now.

And while Nintendo hasn't been as bad about getting older games on Virtual Console as PSN, I'd still like to see them be more aggressive about getting it out there. I think they've done the best job of it compared to 360 and PS3 - especially when you look at all the Turbografix, SNES and Genesis stuff they got.

They would need to change how matchmaking works, but I'd also like to see greater control for games I would host online. As archaic as Friend Codes might be, they do prevent the random asshole factor of online gaming.

And taking a page from Tatsunoko Vs. Capcom, for all games, I want a universal invisible stat that tracks people that ragequit/disconnect to avoid a loss being tacked on to their record, preventing them from getting in on my games.

Voice chat - don't care for it, but make headsets - they're better than the mic distributed now. Also stat track that. There are games like Monster Hunter where I'd like to see in advance if people are willing to communicate with me. I don't want to play with anyone that doesn't at least have a keyboard on-hand.

Finally I'd spruce up the DS online store interface with at least a search function. WiiWare and VC's interface does well enough, but DS has a horrible store interface.

They do all that and, yes, I'd pay.

[TheGrandMom]

Re: Would you pay Nintendo for its online content?

I agree. With some significant changes, I'd gladly pay. I just can't see Nintendo doing something that radical. They are much too conservative.

[Omgwtfbbqkitten]

Re: Would you pay Nintendo for its online content?

Personally, I really prefer they didn't go that way at all because developers are just too arrogant and willing to exploit online gamers for additional profit. And there are plenty of gamers dumb enough to take it from them.

At least as Nintendo is now, their customers don't get exploited at all and developrs are made to release complete games. Online is bit overrated anyway.

Plus if Nintendo or a third party really wants to get around the friend code system, Monster Hunter Tri is proof you totally can.

[TheGrandMom]

Re: Would you pay Nintendo for its online content?

NINTENDO WII SUPER MARIO GALAXY 2 : Gaming: Console | Dell

Didn't want to make a new thread so I'm posting this here. Speaking of Nintendo, this is a must have game if you have a Wii and it's only $35.

[Omgwtfbbqkitten]

Re: Would you pay Nintendo for its online content?

I totally want Galaxy 2, but I want to experience all of the first game before I do. My big regret for Mario 64 and Sunshine was that I never did it all, which is something I usually do in Mario games. Probably will never do it for 64, as it just hasn't aged that well.

These Galaxy games are just pure fun to play so far, though, I've played around with Galaxy 2 at some kiosks and its something I do look forward to.

[Malacite]

Re: Would you pay Nintendo for its online content?

tl;dr

The Wii's online play as is, is a complete fucking Joke. If Nintendo starts charging for it on top of that, they'll be shooting themselves in the foot. Whomever came up with the notion needs to be shot, now. At least Sony has the brains to keep all their current services free (still can't wait to find out just what the hell this "premium" service of theirs is at E3)


Honestly I've said it a million times before and I'll say it again (even if no one ever listens); Nintendo is the undisputed master of price gouging and ripping people off because they're so good at it, that no one dares bitch at them for it.

[Omgwtfbbqkitten]

Re: Would you pay Nintendo for its online content?

tl;dr

If the OP is "too long" for you, get an attention span. You only embarrass yourself if you charge in uninformed.

The Wii's online play as is, is a complete fucking Joke. If Nintendo starts charging for it on top of that, they'll be shooting themselves in the foot. Whomever came up with the notion needs to be shot, now. At least Sony has the brains to keep all their current services free (still can't wait to find out just what the hell this "premium" service of theirs is at E3)

And here you go embarrassing yourself, because Miyamoto was suggesting changing how they do online before they'd consider charging for it. I'm fairly certain as 3DS nears launch we'll have ideas about how they want to change things.

Honestly I've said it a million times before and I'll say it again (even if no one ever listens); Nintendo is the undisputed master of price gouging and ripping people off because they're so good at it, that no one dares bitch at them for it.

If you've said this before and "no one listens" it tends to mean your claims are full of it or you're just obsessing on a point no one really cares about. Apparently i'm one of the people that have elected to ignore your claims, care to refresh my memory?

[Kailea]

Re: Would you pay Nintendo for its online content?

sounds like a plan, I would pay for it if Nintendo did their online more like MS or PSN

[Feba]

Re: Would you pay Nintendo for its online content?

Let me put it this way, in reference to all companies: I'm a cheapass, and lately I've only bought the top %3 of games that catch my interest, and some very very, very deeply discounted games. The more you charge for, the less I'm going to buy; the more entertainment I can get from your product at a lower price, the more willing I'll be to buy it. If you make a game I can go through in ten hours, that's fine; I may even like it enough to buy it new. But only if I know that's a Metal Gear Solid or No More Heroes that I'm going to be playing time and time again.

If you want me to buy your game, you'd better either already have blown my mind (Trico, MGS, NMH, etc.) or promise an INCREDIBLE experience for the money.

[Omgwtfbbqkitten]

Re: Would you pay Nintendo for its online content?

Let me put it this way, in reference to all companies: I'm a cheapass

Well, I think that's what companies are very much afraid of. You pretty much wait til the games aren't profitable or you can find them really cheap used before you'll consider buying them. And companies always worry about extreme cases and not the norm.

When the RIAA sought to punish people for downloading MP3s they ended up going after grandmas, little girls and people or people that actually purchased a lot of CDs brand new because they sampled them online.

But in this case, the likes of EA want you to feel like you're stealing from them, so they're going to do everything they can to make you feel like a thief, even though you're making legal purchases. They're also worried about some kid in Chile ripping PSP games to his memory stick, but give no thought to how inflated things get out there and how, unlike America, the industry has made gaming too much of a hobby only rich kids can pay into.

No matter how you cut it, the industry has become more about perceived value the real value.

Games like MGS: Peacewalker, Pokemon: HG/SS, Dissidia, Monster Hunter, the Mario Galaxy games, Metroid Prime Trilogy, God of War Collection, Mega Man Zero Collection and things of that nature are feature-rich games loaded with value before things like download content even come into the picture.

Many of these bigger companies have the ability to make these feature-rich games, but won't even bother if they know they can short you on content and get more money out of you later.

[jenova_9]

Re: Would you pay Nintendo for its online content?

Nintendo is too dumb to develop and run a high quality Pokemon mmorpg on par with FFXI. If they did, they would be three times as rich. :p

[Omgwtfbbqkitten]

Re: Would you pay Nintendo for its online content?

Nintendo is too dumb to develop and run a high quality Pokemon mmorpg on par with FFXI. If they did, they would be three times as rich. :p

That's only because you think a Pokemon MMORPG would work.

It wouldn't, because Pokemon technically already is an MMORPG and one few players would be willing to start from scratch on. Why draw attention away from the main series, anyway?

It already has a persistent world.
You can meet up with other trainers at Pokecenters online and even do other events.

What possible benefit could there be to taking what they already do and making it an MMO?

Only difference would be other people in the world catching pokemon and making you wait for respawns or twits wanting to PVP you.

The people that play competitively already find each other and they wouldn't nag me in-game to do it.

[jenova_9]

Re: Would you pay Nintendo for its online content?

if they make the graphics good enough and pack it with lots of persistent world features and other bells and whistles and goodies not found in the existing pokemon games, even some veterans would be interested to start over, but more importantly they would reel in a new generation of fans and vets from other mmorpgs. :p

anyway Nintendo seems too lazy to make a cool new official Star Fox. what a waste of a great franchise. And to this day there has yet to be a
4 player co-op Star Fox game. All Namco could think of was a senseless 4 player versus mode. -_-;