Blow for Wii Online as Third-Parties Denied Ability at Launch

ewwww, as if you'd ever get me to touch one of those nasty things (N64 controller) I still couldn't do it...splitscreen is just...icky.

2 screen Halo, Hang 'Em High, no radar

'course neither is a patch on 16-player Wolfenstein, Beach

or if you wanna get really old school, System Link Test Drive 4(PS), San Fransisco, Shelby Cobra .vs Stingray (I prefer the Cobra, but its a fair match, Stingray might even be better overall car)

The N64 controller is my favourite, don't diss it.

consider you and your controller officially dissed.
TO THE EXTREME™!!

Edges out NES controller for Worst. Controller. Ever.

I'll save you the trouble of claiming that it had the first analog stick on a console (it didn't, and the analog stick on N64 sucked anyway). Its everything negative anyone ever said about the original Xbox controller(except the part about the jewel not lighting up) only its not as good.

Its a dead end on the controller evolutionary tree. Good riddance to bad rubbish.

Who said it's a growing new generation? It's the same people playing online that were playing online before, except on consoles, not PCs.

You can boast about how good "online" stuff is, and how state-of-the-art it is, as much as you like, but it doesn't change the fact that it's just glorified mulitplayer with a wire in between. Multiplayer games have existed for ages. Just because it has a wire in between doesn't make it suddenly more amazing - to me, anyway. Also, I don't want to play strangers, I want to play my friends. Why buy 2 consoles, 2 TVs, 2 copies of the game, when all you need is 2 controllers?

I assume you would strongly disagree if I suggested that the entire "next generation" concept is nonsense because games/technology are good enough already and needn't be improved... they're just trying to make more money off you!

Ummm, you did. I quoted you and everything. Also, I think you're wrong.

I don't think you can lump all Xbox owners in and say they're all PC gamers who happen to use a console. From my personal experience, Xbox brought gaming to people who otherwise wouldn't be playing, or be as serious about it as they are post-Xbox. For example, my buddies wife LOVED Rainbow 6, so he bought her her own Xbox, and she used to play with us all the time. I doubt you could have gotten her into PC gaming at all, much less as easily. People who don't own a computer used to play regualrly in my Xbox LAN group. People who own a computer, but not a "gaming-class" computer, and don't have the money to keep up with all the upgrades. People who like the simplicity of console gaming. People who are intimidated by computers will pick up a console controller.

I also think your characterization of my comments as "boasting" is completely off the mark. I know what I like and I don't claim that this generation is any better, talk to the Sony people about how neato Blu Ray is if you want that kind of guff. I just know whats good. I'm not saying that everyone should rush out and buy a 360 and get LIVE! and only buy games with online multiplayer, theres plenty of games where multiplayer online or otherwise isn't even appropriate. What I am saying is that I would resent anyone calling me an idiot for using Link or its lack as the deciding factor in a prospective game purchase.

Console gaming did not spring up in a vacuum(nor did it begin with the NES), it was an attempt to bring the arcade experience home. Lets focus for a moment, just on racing games(as the argument for Linked/online FPS is even more obvious) Admittedly consloes have evolved quite a bit, and have carved out their own territorry and created their own new genres of games whilst arcade gaming has atrophied to near irrelevance, but racing games are one genre that can truly be seen to have evolved directly from its arcade roots. Go to anywhere theres arcade racing, and you'll likely see twinned cabinets, if not more. Why? Becasue people like to race their friends, and splitscreen would be too lame to spend the kind of money those damn machines require nowadays.

Now as to the neccessity of multiples, if you can't find an extra TV somewhere to use for this, you have serious problems. As for the console, everyone should have their own, I don't see a problem here either. The games, well, if you're planning an afternoon, or weekend of gaming, you can always rent extra copies of whatever you need.

Are they trying to make more money offa me? Sure, but I'm grateful for the opportunity to play Linked games. And I damn sure know I get more value out of them than games I play once, beat, then set aside, perhaps forever. Online/Link can make a mediocre single player game into something that punches well above its weight class in the fun department. Top Spin is a bad example, but I'll use it anyway, bad example becasue its already a great game, add Link and no one is ever forced into the "bad" view, we both get over the shoulder near camera. Links(the golf game) is another, you get 4 people together Linked and you can breeze through 18 holes in record time, seldom having to wait long for another player, because we're all playing at the same time. It can be a bit of a logistical hassle, but its simpler than PC LANing, and the payoff is totally worth it.

Ok, I might have been over-generalising about PC owners, but I think that was what made Live successful, not because it was inherently great. Yes, it is a clever idea, but that doesn't automatically make it essential.

Which is what I'm trying to say - I don't think it is essential - like you said, a game can be fun anyway. The question is, just how much better does it make a game?

Things I know are, games are fun without playing online, online mode isn't something I personally miss, and you can achieve the same thing without playing online - even if it is more "lame".

I've played a lot of games split-screen and a few where players share the same screen, and I refuse to believe that it's that much less fun than playing the same thing, just in different rooms.

I'm not saying online gameplay is pointless or not fun, but I can't see how it's so much greater than without it, to determine whether or not someone buys or enjoys playing a game. In fact I would say, they shouldn't even bother making online modes unless the game is fun without it anyway (unless it is online-only - which is a different type of game in itself).

Hence, my cynical view is that "online" is another buzz-word, which is over-estimated, etc, and relied on as a sellig point, when it shouldn't automatically be. Just like what I think about "high definition" - it's just a word, which does not imply anything about how good a game is.

I agree with everything realvictory said.

Excellent explaination.

Well, I have to disagree. It was not especially clever, nor was it inherently great. What it was, is overdue, and on the whole well-implemented. It was an idea whose time had come and went and come again. MS made it work, there were headaches and disapointment along the way, but I never felt that it was overpriced. My biggest complaints about LIVE! actually involved its launch. It is my firm belief that many games which would have been delivered sooner with System Link, were delayed for months to incorporate and launch after LIVE!. Also, System Link was never implemented on some games with LIVE! which is annoying when 8 people some of whom do not have LIVE! (or broadband, or a computer) want to play together.


remember you asked...
*Does his brill Fr. Ted voice
THAT WOULD BE AN ECUMENICALL MATTERRRR!
In other words, that is at once a subjective opinion type thing, and dependant upon several factors and variants. For instance, an FPS thats too short, and has shoddy AI, but otherwise is solid benefits enormously from a well done online mode. Almost all racing and mecha games should come standard with it as a matter of course. Fighting/Beat 'em Ups not so much, and to paraphrase you, if it sucks, why make equally sucky online mode? Sports games, online/Link is useful for camera purposes. Any game involving strategy(Madden) certainly benefits from private screens.

Theres just lots of things you just can't do with split/shared screens. Playing with your own screen is just more "fun".

Who said anything about different rooms? Though the idea has its appeals, I'm sure theres plenty of people who played 8 person Halo on 2 screens linked in different rooms.


Well, I can't help the blind to see, you need to look to Jebus for that.

games should be fun, yes.


Its used as a buzzword by some sure, but that doesn't mean that its all hype...just like high definition, but it doesnt mean its NOT good, or highly desireable either. I disagree with you on one magor point, I think.

You view the advent of online gaming as a premature technology pushed and exploited by ebil corporate giants out to take all of your money.

I view the advent of online gaming as an overdue exploitation of existing technologies and infrastructure which has finally been made ubiquitous, the delay caused by (ebil) corporate giants spoon-feeding innovation as slowly as possible, the more efficently to take all of my money.

If you split up what I say into tiny fragments, yes you can disprove each individual piece - albeit mostly subjectively; but you have to take the whole thing in context, which is why I wrote all I did in a single post, not each separate paragraph/point in separate posts...



Firstly - I didn't say it was a bad thing. Secondly, that entire decription of Live describes the XBox itself, as far as I'm concerned. At the end of the day, some poeple obviously bought it, some didn't, some liked it, some didn't. Surely the difficulty of making it successful, though, somewhat implies that it wasn't desired much in the first place. It's easy to say in retrospect, "it was successful because people wanted it." I would instead, compare the amount Microsoft "pushed" it to the amount people "accepted" it. I would say the former outweighs the latter a lot.



Yes, this is subjective, hence why it was a question. Now tell me, though, why do you need the internet to solve these problems? Here's the reason I believe: they looked at the answer and made up a question to fit the answer, as opposed to the other way round. Arguing is irrelevant, though, since the benefits are subjective.



I never disputed that. I simply said I don't think it's significantly better.




Fair enough, I assumed that was what it was used for. :P



Maybe I should look to Microsoft, or watch more TV ads. :P



Not just that - if they have an offline mode, that should be fun - online modes shouldn't be necessary in order to make a game worth buying/playing.



Now prove to me that you aren't yourself a victim of marketing campaigns! I also said I didn't say it was inherently a bad thing - what I said was that they make it sound more important than it actually is.

Either it isn't necessary or it shouldn't be necessary, to give me a good reason to buy or play a game. So people who tell me it's necessary are either lying or mistaken. It might actually be better, but it shouldn't be better. In other words, whether a game has an online mode or not shouldn't determine whether it's a good or bad game.

OK now you've devolved into complete w****ry.

Leaving your attempt to discredit dissection as a valid method of counterargument. "...which is why I wrote all I did in a single post, not each separate paragraph/point in separate posts..." Thats utter nonsense, and an outright lie. Theres a myriad of different reasons that are much more relevant than preserving the contextual continuity of your argument. I will say that arguments are based upon discrete components, you can't say...oh well, ignore the fact that several of them are faulty, you have to consider it as a whole...thats tantamount to saying its so becasue I say so.

Microsoft didn't have to "push" it, I would have dragged it from them kicking and screaming had I the power or opportunity. You persist with this fallacious belief that the demand for online gaming and services is an artificial construct born from marketing. It just isn't so.

You also appear to believe in an ideal world where everyhting happens for a good reason and everyone just does the right thing as a matter of course. Would it be better if the FPS I used in my example was longer and had better AI? Sure, that'd be great. But the world doesn't work that way. But you're right it is all subjective.

More fun IS significantly better.

Once again we get to the part where you diverge with reality. No, of course online modes shouldn't be neccessary for some games to be worth buying. But the choice between two similar games one with online, one without, for those that enjoy it, the online mode easily gets the nod.

Finally I really don't have to prove s**t to you, I was ready and anticipating this s**t before MS even thoguht seriously about making a console. No one brainwashed me into it, you're deluded.

I have no choice to conclude that you have some sort of Luddite-like reaction to online gaming. That or you're wearing a foil hat that keeps the alien mind control rays that make all the rest of us keen on online gaming from getting to your brain. Much as you claim for your previous post you have to take the games as a whole, you can't just delete online capabilities from your calculations, no matter how improper you seem to feel it is to give them consideration.

Obviously, but you keep forgetting that I'm not trying to say that online is inherently a bad thing. Also, you can't say "without online mode it wouldn't be as good" for a reason as to why it's necessary.

In other words, concentrate on making the actual game good, without relying on on the internet, it shouldn't make a difference - maybe it means I live in an ideal pathetic dream world - I don't care, I'm entitled to have an opinion, and I'm entitled to disagree with things. I'm not trying to pretend that there's one pure right way of doing things and that all others are wrong; I'm just explaining what I think.

Also, I wasn't trying to persuade people to get rid of online functionality - I was talking about the topic of this post, which is lack of online functionality, whether or not they like it.

I don't play online games at all, so there are people out there who don't play online and at the present time have no intention of playing online. Obviously, I have a natural resistance to the "alien mind control rays".

Interesting quote here from DFC Intelligence's latest newsletter, which suggests that the online element may not be so important: