The "Nintendo Games" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
SEGA’s Dreamcast introduced online gaming to the console world – a step which invoked a response from its competitors; Nintendo, Sony and Microsoft all have some sort of plans to take their latest consoles online in the future. They have to, even if its not ready, simply for fear of falling behind.
However, Nintendo has been most reserved in its response to the online question; the company has yet to announce any specific online plans.
Many have used this as an excuse to bash Nintendo, but from a business perspective, Nintendo is making the wiser decision. Both Sony and Microsoft are venturing into new territory with unproven business models and with technology that may never become profitable.
Both Microsoft and Sony plan to launch online networks, which will be subscription based – that is, gamers will need to pay some sort of monthly fee in order to play their games online. This in itself is fine for gamers, but for the companies themselves, there are very significant losses to be had.
When factoring in the cost of game development, the cost of setting up the online infrastructure and then the cost of hiring staff to maintain an online network – we can see that the overheads from running such online networks are ongoing. Will the monthly revenue earned from online games be enough to cover such expenses?
The latter question poses and interesting dilemma for companies: acceptance of online gaming in general. While games such as Phantasy Star Online were popular, they were, in terms of sales, not enough to provide SEGA with significant profits. Online gaming on consoles is significantly different from online gaming on PC as well, as console gamers generally need to have a more “plug and play” style of environment. This also brings the infrastructure of online console gaming into question.
Both Sony and Microsoft are focusing their online efforts on broadband technology. The problem here is that broadband technology is both expensive (especially in some countries) and is not widely available. It’s fine for somewhere like the USA, but for many parts of the world, broadband Internet is still a dream.
I firmly believe that console makers are moving into the online arena too soon; the next generation of consoles is where online gaming should start. From a business perspective, Microsoft and Sony are going to have a hard time justifying their losses. Obviously, even if losses are made, the initial outlay and cost might be worth it in the long run. It could be argued that Microsoft and Sony will eventually make up for the initial losses, but that argument remains cloudy at best.
Nintendo understands these difficulties and this is exactly why it is reluctant to enter the online arena. It has nothing to do with ability to design online games, or with the difference in console technology; after all, the GameCube is capable of utilizing both a 56K modem as well as a broadband adapter.
Is online gaming important enough to warrant such financial loss and such strong debate amongst gamers? And will it be enough for any particular company to win the “console war”?
It depends on your perspective.
If you consider amount of sales a winning factor, then I would say that Sony will unquestionably win the current generation on this basis. The PlayStation 2 is simply so far ahead, that the GameCube and Xbox may never catch up.
But having said that, I don’t believe that numbers alone can win the console war. Sony won the last generation in terms of overall sales – yet the company was plagued by rampant worldwide piracy, which caused losses of hundreds of millions of dollars. Nintendo, on the other hand, maintained high profits.
I personally feel that the company with the highest profits has, at the end of the day, won the war. And Nintendo’s policy of proprietary storage media, coupled with its still-high licensing fees, suggest that it will be the winner in this respect.
So where does that leave Microsoft?
I’d say, somewhere in the middle.
I don’t believe that Microsoft will win the next generation console war in terms of either profitability or sales – but I do believe that the Xbox will sell well enough to warrant a second console from Microsoft. At the very least, Microsoft will be able to use the Xbox as a lever for its next console – which will hopefully see more high-quality first party games.
In conclusion, I feel that the online ability of game consoles will not at all dictate whether or not they will “win the war”. And I personally believe that we must question whether or not online gaming is so important just yet. If we encourage online gaming to appear too quickly, we may see, for the most part, much of the same – with online multiplayer capabilities added. I think that so many developers are interested in online gaming because it doesn’t necessarily demand new ideas or innovation, but rather, companies can create a game with plenty of online features and pass it off as an innovative or unique product.
Therefore, perhaps we are looking at the wrong area. Maybe, rather than hurrying Nintendo and others to get online, we should be making sure that we ask for new, unique, innovative games. And on this front, Nintendo is delivering in truckloads. I’m personally quite happy to play games like Pikmin and Animal Forest + while some of my fellow gamers are playing cliched first person shooters with a few buddies.
However, Nintendo has been most reserved in its response to the online question; the company has yet to announce any specific online plans.
Many have used this as an excuse to bash Nintendo, but from a business perspective, Nintendo is making the wiser decision. Both Sony and Microsoft are venturing into new territory with unproven business models and with technology that may never become profitable.
Both Microsoft and Sony plan to launch online networks, which will be subscription based – that is, gamers will need to pay some sort of monthly fee in order to play their games online. This in itself is fine for gamers, but for the companies themselves, there are very significant losses to be had.
When factoring in the cost of game development, the cost of setting up the online infrastructure and then the cost of hiring staff to maintain an online network – we can see that the overheads from running such online networks are ongoing. Will the monthly revenue earned from online games be enough to cover such expenses?
The latter question poses and interesting dilemma for companies: acceptance of online gaming in general. While games such as Phantasy Star Online were popular, they were, in terms of sales, not enough to provide SEGA with significant profits. Online gaming on consoles is significantly different from online gaming on PC as well, as console gamers generally need to have a more “plug and play” style of environment. This also brings the infrastructure of online console gaming into question.
Both Sony and Microsoft are focusing their online efforts on broadband technology. The problem here is that broadband technology is both expensive (especially in some countries) and is not widely available. It’s fine for somewhere like the USA, but for many parts of the world, broadband Internet is still a dream.
I firmly believe that console makers are moving into the online arena too soon; the next generation of consoles is where online gaming should start. From a business perspective, Microsoft and Sony are going to have a hard time justifying their losses. Obviously, even if losses are made, the initial outlay and cost might be worth it in the long run. It could be argued that Microsoft and Sony will eventually make up for the initial losses, but that argument remains cloudy at best.
Nintendo understands these difficulties and this is exactly why it is reluctant to enter the online arena. It has nothing to do with ability to design online games, or with the difference in console technology; after all, the GameCube is capable of utilizing both a 56K modem as well as a broadband adapter.
Is online gaming important enough to warrant such financial loss and such strong debate amongst gamers? And will it be enough for any particular company to win the “console war”?
It depends on your perspective.
If you consider amount of sales a winning factor, then I would say that Sony will unquestionably win the current generation on this basis. The PlayStation 2 is simply so far ahead, that the GameCube and Xbox may never catch up.
But having said that, I don’t believe that numbers alone can win the console war. Sony won the last generation in terms of overall sales – yet the company was plagued by rampant worldwide piracy, which caused losses of hundreds of millions of dollars. Nintendo, on the other hand, maintained high profits.
I personally feel that the company with the highest profits has, at the end of the day, won the war. And Nintendo’s policy of proprietary storage media, coupled with its still-high licensing fees, suggest that it will be the winner in this respect.
So where does that leave Microsoft?
I’d say, somewhere in the middle.
I don’t believe that Microsoft will win the next generation console war in terms of either profitability or sales – but I do believe that the Xbox will sell well enough to warrant a second console from Microsoft. At the very least, Microsoft will be able to use the Xbox as a lever for its next console – which will hopefully see more high-quality first party games.
In conclusion, I feel that the online ability of game consoles will not at all dictate whether or not they will “win the war”. And I personally believe that we must question whether or not online gaming is so important just yet. If we encourage online gaming to appear too quickly, we may see, for the most part, much of the same – with online multiplayer capabilities added. I think that so many developers are interested in online gaming because it doesn’t necessarily demand new ideas or innovation, but rather, companies can create a game with plenty of online features and pass it off as an innovative or unique product.
Therefore, perhaps we are looking at the wrong area. Maybe, rather than hurrying Nintendo and others to get online, we should be making sure that we ask for new, unique, innovative games. And on this front, Nintendo is delivering in truckloads. I’m personally quite happy to play games like Pikmin and Animal Forest + while some of my fellow gamers are playing cliched first person shooters with a few buddies.
aww man... i don't wanna pay to play. Thats why pay to play gaming on sky sucks :D
Nintendo's cowardly approach
Original Message posted by ===SONICRAV---> on 13/02/2002 at 6.18PM There are 28 replies.
Now there’s a provocative title to catch your attention!
Does anyone remember those great Nintendo flops of old? The Virtual Boy- supposedly bringing 3D headsets home for the first time. Instead it was a headache inducing, monochromic, fuzzy system that needed to be re-tuned every half an hour and sported no more than half a dozen games.
Then there was the gallant 64DD- an add-on to the N64 that promised so much. It would let you go online, get extras for games and even make your own characters. Instead it was a one-trick-pony that supported a lacklustre list of games, had a very muted Japan-only launch and was only online-enabled for a short few months.
Finally, Project Reality- the CD based games system to replace the SNES. Before the unit was even finished Nintendo’s partners, Sony, quit, the company that was to make the chips for the consoles was changed, and Nintendo had to go back to the drawing board with a cart based console.
See the pattern? Every time Nintendo have tried to release a piece of kit that is ahead of its time (in this case VR headsets and online consoles), it tends to be poorly realised, and as a result the unit flops.
So, it comes as no surprise that Nintendo’s current approach to future gaming trends is very apprehensive…
The Gamecube is the only of the current generation of console not to have online plans firmly set. Meanwhile the opposition have modems, online games and gaming network plans almost ready to be implemented.
I doubt that this will be a huge problem for the console- it has the support to succeed in gaining back ground lost to Sony 6 years ago. However, it does worry you about the Nintendo’s future commitments. Will they continue to stay one step behind the pack when it comes to gaming advances- perpetually releasing their consoles last and with less “extras” than the rest?
Worryingly, my gut feeling to that is “yes”. At the moment this isn’t a big problem- the GC undercuts the price of the competition and aims at a different audience- young gamers and hardcore fans. But what happens if, in 5 years time, Sony too begin to market young gamers? What happens if the Nintendo console comes out so late that the price of the other consoles has dropped enough to cast doubt on which box to buy the kids? Then Nintendo would certainly be in trouble.
Ok, so maybe I’m being a bit melodramatic. Nintendo certainly aren’t going out of business any time soon. However, to realise its potential the company really must learn that the “wait and see” approach doesn’t always work- fate favours the bold.
Sonic
Original Message posted by ===SONICRAV---> on 13/02/2002 at 6.18PM There are 28 replies.
Now there’s a provocative title to catch your attention!
Does anyone remember those great Nintendo flops of old? The Virtual Boy- supposedly bringing 3D headsets home for the first time. Instead it was a headache inducing, monochromic, fuzzy system that needed to be re-tuned every half an hour and sported no more than half a dozen games.
Then there was the gallant 64DD- an add-on to the N64 that promised so much. It would let you go online, get extras for games and even make your own characters. Instead it was a one-trick-pony that supported a lacklustre list of games, had a very muted Japan-only launch and was only online-enabled for a short few months.
Finally, Project Reality- the CD based games system to replace the SNES. Before the unit was even finished Nintendo’s partners, Sony, quit, the company that was to make the chips for the consoles was changed, and Nintendo had to go back to the drawing board with a cart based console.
See the pattern? Every time Nintendo have tried to release a piece of kit that is ahead of its time (in this case VR headsets and online consoles), it tends to be poorly realised, and as a result the unit flops.
So, it comes as no surprise that Nintendo’s current approach to future gaming trends is very apprehensive…
The Gamecube is the only of the current generation of console not to have online plans firmly set. Meanwhile the opposition have modems, online games and gaming network plans almost ready to be implemented.
I doubt that this will be a huge problem for the console- it has the support to succeed in gaining back ground lost to Sony 6 years ago. However, it does worry you about the Nintendo’s future commitments. Will they continue to stay one step behind the pack when it comes to gaming advances- perpetually releasing their consoles last and with less “extras” than the rest?
Worryingly, my gut feeling to that is “yes”. At the moment this isn’t a big problem- the GC undercuts the price of the competition and aims at a different audience- young gamers and hardcore fans. But what happens if, in 5 years time, Sony too begin to market young gamers? What happens if the Nintendo console comes out so late that the price of the other consoles has dropped enough to cast doubt on which box to buy the kids? Then Nintendo would certainly be in trouble.
Ok, so maybe I’m being a bit melodramatic. Nintendo certainly aren’t going out of business any time soon. However, to realise its potential the company really must learn that the “wait and see” approach doesn’t always work- fate favours the bold.
Sonic
I'm not saying no to online gaming, I'm saying wait till it is readily available and easily accessible
Russell (RM18) wrote:
> I think that the problem with online gaming is that some consoles are getting
> seriously close to being mini PC's. I don't think it should be implemented until
> its much more easier and accessible
I would have to disagree with you there, online gaming is definently the way to go and if they don't do it now they will fall behind. The problem is that it needs to be made as simple as possible (which it will be for the consoles) and have a decent server that isn't a chat room so people can just log in click the game they want to play choose a room and play.
No need for keyboards that just turns it into a PC, if people want to search the web they will most likely to own a PC for all the extra benefits, downloads etc. As simple connect and play policy would suit nicely.
Ever seen the Dreamcast searching the web? It's a lot better on a PC.
> I think that the problem with online gaming is that some consoles are getting
> seriously close to being mini PC's. I don't think it should be implemented until
> its much more easier and accessible
I would have to disagree with you there, online gaming is definently the way to go and if they don't do it now they will fall behind. The problem is that it needs to be made as simple as possible (which it will be for the consoles) and have a decent server that isn't a chat room so people can just log in click the game they want to play choose a room and play.
No need for keyboards that just turns it into a PC, if people want to search the web they will most likely to own a PC for all the extra benefits, downloads etc. As simple connect and play policy would suit nicely.
Ever seen the Dreamcast searching the web? It's a lot better on a PC.
I think that the problem with online gaming is that some consoles are getting seriously close to being mini PC's. I don't think it should be implemented until its much more easier and accessible
On the online gaming field Nintendo seem to be playing things safe, they have propsed plans for online gaming but nothing wide area it's more of a play that kid you know down the street kind of affair. (LAN)
This is in many ways a good move, Nintendo don't take the online gaming risk to much but still have Segas servers up and ready for any wide area online gaming fun. So that's there if you want it.
The thing about consoles is people buy them for their simplicity, being able to plug in a game and play it is the whole point of consoles, some people (lets say younger children who compile the bulk of the gaming world) don't particulary care much for playing online and would much rather have the real interactivness of mulitplayer by inviting a few friends round. Of course theres the cost and as soon as more money is mentioned most people would just switch off and I think Nintendo know this.
Online gamig is a risk for consoles, usualy people who want to go online or who care enough to bother to want to go online would purchase a PC to get all the benefits so wheras undoubtedly online gaming on consoles will take off it's never going to be as successful or better then online gaming through a PC. At least for the time being anyway. Our consoles are becoming PC's as time goes on anyway with upgradable copnents (expansion packs) but thats a different matter.
Sega took the risk and proved that it can work however I do feel Microsoft will spend a lot of time and money focusing on the online gaming aspect rather than the actual console gaming element, this could be a downfall and they will have to bog off back to dominanting the PC world.
Sony will play things more carefully but still invest a lot of time into online play and if this pulls off their profit margins should be high enough for it to be worth the gamble. Sony could cash in on their popularity, if enough people buy their console (A hell of a lot of people already have) then their online advantages could become even better, more people = more money = more fun, supposedly.
Give me Mario Kart, a few friends, a few drinks and day.
Oh and tell them to bring their pads ;0)
This is in many ways a good move, Nintendo don't take the online gaming risk to much but still have Segas servers up and ready for any wide area online gaming fun. So that's there if you want it.
The thing about consoles is people buy them for their simplicity, being able to plug in a game and play it is the whole point of consoles, some people (lets say younger children who compile the bulk of the gaming world) don't particulary care much for playing online and would much rather have the real interactivness of mulitplayer by inviting a few friends round. Of course theres the cost and as soon as more money is mentioned most people would just switch off and I think Nintendo know this.
Online gamig is a risk for consoles, usualy people who want to go online or who care enough to bother to want to go online would purchase a PC to get all the benefits so wheras undoubtedly online gaming on consoles will take off it's never going to be as successful or better then online gaming through a PC. At least for the time being anyway. Our consoles are becoming PC's as time goes on anyway with upgradable copnents (expansion packs) but thats a different matter.
Sega took the risk and proved that it can work however I do feel Microsoft will spend a lot of time and money focusing on the online gaming aspect rather than the actual console gaming element, this could be a downfall and they will have to bog off back to dominanting the PC world.
Sony will play things more carefully but still invest a lot of time into online play and if this pulls off their profit margins should be high enough for it to be worth the gamble. Sony could cash in on their popularity, if enough people buy their console (A hell of a lot of people already have) then their online advantages could become even better, more people = more money = more fun, supposedly.
Give me Mario Kart, a few friends, a few drinks and day.
Oh and tell them to bring their pads ;0)
Thanks! In many ways I think that the big companies are in a race to be the first to get online gaming up, so they can establish themsleves quicker. I think personally that Nintendo's wait-and-see appproach is best
I don't really feel that the next-gen. console gamers are fully prepared for on-line console gaming yet.
Many of us already play on-line with PC's, and are happy to stick with it that way. And looking at each console's on-line games, they're either FPS's or something you can get on the PC, so there's nothing new.
I also think that the cost of setting it up could have it's effect on wether people choose it or not, un-like with consoles. X-box owners would want cheaper prices, as they payed more for the console and games.
PS2 and GameCube owners would also want cheap prices, but as their consoles were relatively cheap, but because of this they may be charged more!
Nintendo, Sony and Microsoft are all big comanies earnings more than enough every day! So I don't think they'd really need to charge too much to go on-line. But being so big, they may have to/be forced to charge high prices.
I'm not gunna rush into on-line gamingon the Cube, unless maybe Mario Kart becomes on-line!!
Good post too.
Many of us already play on-line with PC's, and are happy to stick with it that way. And looking at each console's on-line games, they're either FPS's or something you can get on the PC, so there's nothing new.
I also think that the cost of setting it up could have it's effect on wether people choose it or not, un-like with consoles. X-box owners would want cheaper prices, as they payed more for the console and games.
PS2 and GameCube owners would also want cheap prices, but as their consoles were relatively cheap, but because of this they may be charged more!
Nintendo, Sony and Microsoft are all big comanies earnings more than enough every day! So I don't think they'd really need to charge too much to go on-line. But being so big, they may have to/be forced to charge high prices.
I'm not gunna rush into on-line gamingon the Cube, unless maybe Mario Kart becomes on-line!!
Good post too.
SEGA’s Dreamcast introduced online gaming to the console world – a step which invoked a response from its competitors; Nintendo, Sony and Microsoft all have some sort of plans to take their latest consoles online in the future. They have to, even if its not ready, simply for fear of falling behind.
However, Nintendo has been most reserved in its response to the online question; the company has yet to announce any specific online plans.
Many have used this as an excuse to bash Nintendo, but from a business perspective, Nintendo is making the wiser decision. Both Sony and Microsoft are venturing into new territory with unproven business models and with technology that may never become profitable.
Both Microsoft and Sony plan to launch online networks, which will be subscription based – that is, gamers will need to pay some sort of monthly fee in order to play their games online. This in itself is fine for gamers, but for the companies themselves, there are very significant losses to be had.
When factoring in the cost of game development, the cost of setting up the online infrastructure and then the cost of hiring staff to maintain an online network – we can see that the overheads from running such online networks are ongoing. Will the monthly revenue earned from online games be enough to cover such expenses?
The latter question poses and interesting dilemma for companies: acceptance of online gaming in general. While games such as Phantasy Star Online were popular, they were, in terms of sales, not enough to provide SEGA with significant profits. Online gaming on consoles is significantly different from online gaming on PC as well, as console gamers generally need to have a more “plug and play” style of environment. This also brings the infrastructure of online console gaming into question.
Both Sony and Microsoft are focusing their online efforts on broadband technology. The problem here is that broadband technology is both expensive (especially in some countries) and is not widely available. It’s fine for somewhere like the USA, but for many parts of the world, broadband Internet is still a dream.
I firmly believe that console makers are moving into the online arena too soon; the next generation of consoles is where online gaming should start. From a business perspective, Microsoft and Sony are going to have a hard time justifying their losses. Obviously, even if losses are made, the initial outlay and cost might be worth it in the long run. It could be argued that Microsoft and Sony will eventually make up for the initial losses, but that argument remains cloudy at best.
Nintendo understands these difficulties and this is exactly why it is reluctant to enter the online arena. It has nothing to do with ability to design online games, or with the difference in console technology; after all, the GameCube is capable of utilizing both a 56K modem as well as a broadband adapter.
Is online gaming important enough to warrant such financial loss and such strong debate amongst gamers? And will it be enough for any particular company to win the “console war”?
It depends on your perspective.
If you consider amount of sales a winning factor, then I would say that Sony will unquestionably win the current generation on this basis. The PlayStation 2 is simply so far ahead, that the GameCube and Xbox may never catch up.
But having said that, I don’t believe that numbers alone can win the console war. Sony won the last generation in terms of overall sales – yet the company was plagued by rampant worldwide piracy, which caused losses of hundreds of millions of dollars. Nintendo, on the other hand, maintained high profits.
I personally feel that the company with the highest profits has, at the end of the day, won the war. And Nintendo’s policy of proprietary storage media, coupled with its still-high licensing fees, suggest that it will be the winner in this respect.
So where does that leave Microsoft?
I’d say, somewhere in the middle.
I don’t believe that Microsoft will win the next generation console war in terms of either profitability or sales – but I do believe that the Xbox will sell well enough to warrant a second console from Microsoft. At the very least, Microsoft will be able to use the Xbox as a lever for its next console – which will hopefully see more high-quality first party games.
In conclusion, I feel that the online ability of game consoles will not at all dictate whether or not they will “win the war”. And I personally believe that we must question whether or not online gaming is so important just yet. If we encourage online gaming to appear too quickly, we may see, for the most part, much of the same – with online multiplayer capabilities added. I think that so many developers are interested in online gaming because it doesn’t necessarily demand new ideas or innovation, but rather, companies can create a game with plenty of online features and pass it off as an innovative or unique product.
Therefore, perhaps we are looking at the wrong area. Maybe, rather than hurrying Nintendo and others to get online, we should be making sure that we ask for new, unique, innovative games. And on this front, Nintendo is delivering in truckloads. I’m personally quite happy to play games like Pikmin and Animal Forest + while some of my fellow gamers are playing cliched first person shooters with a few buddies.
However, Nintendo has been most reserved in its response to the online question; the company has yet to announce any specific online plans.
Many have used this as an excuse to bash Nintendo, but from a business perspective, Nintendo is making the wiser decision. Both Sony and Microsoft are venturing into new territory with unproven business models and with technology that may never become profitable.
Both Microsoft and Sony plan to launch online networks, which will be subscription based – that is, gamers will need to pay some sort of monthly fee in order to play their games online. This in itself is fine for gamers, but for the companies themselves, there are very significant losses to be had.
When factoring in the cost of game development, the cost of setting up the online infrastructure and then the cost of hiring staff to maintain an online network – we can see that the overheads from running such online networks are ongoing. Will the monthly revenue earned from online games be enough to cover such expenses?
The latter question poses and interesting dilemma for companies: acceptance of online gaming in general. While games such as Phantasy Star Online were popular, they were, in terms of sales, not enough to provide SEGA with significant profits. Online gaming on consoles is significantly different from online gaming on PC as well, as console gamers generally need to have a more “plug and play” style of environment. This also brings the infrastructure of online console gaming into question.
Both Sony and Microsoft are focusing their online efforts on broadband technology. The problem here is that broadband technology is both expensive (especially in some countries) and is not widely available. It’s fine for somewhere like the USA, but for many parts of the world, broadband Internet is still a dream.
I firmly believe that console makers are moving into the online arena too soon; the next generation of consoles is where online gaming should start. From a business perspective, Microsoft and Sony are going to have a hard time justifying their losses. Obviously, even if losses are made, the initial outlay and cost might be worth it in the long run. It could be argued that Microsoft and Sony will eventually make up for the initial losses, but that argument remains cloudy at best.
Nintendo understands these difficulties and this is exactly why it is reluctant to enter the online arena. It has nothing to do with ability to design online games, or with the difference in console technology; after all, the GameCube is capable of utilizing both a 56K modem as well as a broadband adapter.
Is online gaming important enough to warrant such financial loss and such strong debate amongst gamers? And will it be enough for any particular company to win the “console war”?
It depends on your perspective.
If you consider amount of sales a winning factor, then I would say that Sony will unquestionably win the current generation on this basis. The PlayStation 2 is simply so far ahead, that the GameCube and Xbox may never catch up.
But having said that, I don’t believe that numbers alone can win the console war. Sony won the last generation in terms of overall sales – yet the company was plagued by rampant worldwide piracy, which caused losses of hundreds of millions of dollars. Nintendo, on the other hand, maintained high profits.
I personally feel that the company with the highest profits has, at the end of the day, won the war. And Nintendo’s policy of proprietary storage media, coupled with its still-high licensing fees, suggest that it will be the winner in this respect.
So where does that leave Microsoft?
I’d say, somewhere in the middle.
I don’t believe that Microsoft will win the next generation console war in terms of either profitability or sales – but I do believe that the Xbox will sell well enough to warrant a second console from Microsoft. At the very least, Microsoft will be able to use the Xbox as a lever for its next console – which will hopefully see more high-quality first party games.
In conclusion, I feel that the online ability of game consoles will not at all dictate whether or not they will “win the war”. And I personally believe that we must question whether or not online gaming is so important just yet. If we encourage online gaming to appear too quickly, we may see, for the most part, much of the same – with online multiplayer capabilities added. I think that so many developers are interested in online gaming because it doesn’t necessarily demand new ideas or innovation, but rather, companies can create a game with plenty of online features and pass it off as an innovative or unique product.
Therefore, perhaps we are looking at the wrong area. Maybe, rather than hurrying Nintendo and others to get online, we should be making sure that we ask for new, unique, innovative games. And on this front, Nintendo is delivering in truckloads. I’m personally quite happy to play games like Pikmin and Animal Forest + while some of my fellow gamers are playing cliched first person shooters with a few buddies.