Nintendo removed online play from Smash Bros so you could see faces

[Zeus]

A bit of a cop-out here if we must say so. Nintendo has explained that they did not put online play in Super Smash Bros Brawl because they believe it is more fun if you can 'see the face' of the other players. Oh dear Nintendo, why don't you give people the option to play online as well in any case?

<blockquote>Naturally, Nintendo uses the Internet now and with Super Smash Bros. Brawl we had a game you can play with other people, wherever they are. There will probably be people asking why we didn’t do that with this game as well. Well I think it’s more fun if you can see the face of the other people you are playing with, which is why we concentrated on this design this time.”</blockquote>

News Source: <a href="http://www.nintendoeverything.com/?p=27783" target="_Blank">Nintendoeverything</a>

[DunnyUK]

funniest excuse I've heard, obviously it wasn't worth investing in because Wii owners simply don't give a ****, why else would they be playing on it?

[Navarr]

I have yet to understand this article - Super Smash Brothers Brawl HAS online play.

What on Earth are you talking about?

[knewknow]

I have yet to understand this article - Super Smash Brothers Brawl HAS online play.

What on Earth are you talking about?

Maybe they mean New Super Mario Bros. Wii?? I was thinking the same thing when I read the post. Not that I've ever played Smash Bros. online, but that I remember it was included...

*edit... yup, I just read the linked article, and it's for NSMB Wii. How did this get messed up?

[phyl0x]

the article says both new super mario bros and smash bros, obviously they are talking about new super mario, but still maxconsole failed to see that.

smash bros has online play
new super mario does not

[grapeape]

This kind of thing is precisely why Nintendo gets 1 hit console every couple of generations and comes in dead last during the others...they seem to be great at innovation in some areas but are either completely clueless or in denial about others. Lack of HD support and pathetic online support are already making the Wii look longer in the tooth faster than any console in any previous generation, with motion control surely being a default feature of every console next gen, nintendo is going to have a very hard time catching up.

[tech3475]

My mum has a saying "to assume makes an ASS of you (Nintendo)".

[EL_CAD]

This kind of thing is precisely why Nintendo gets 1 hit console every couple of generations and comes in dead last during the others...they seem to be great at innovation in some areas but are either completely clueless or in denial about others. Lack of HD support and pathetic online support are already making the Wii look longer in the tooth faster than any console in any previous generation, with motion control surely being a default feature of every console next gen, nintendo is going to have a very hard time catching up.

When did they ever come in "dead last"?

NES - won, with no body else even coming close
SNES - won, but Genesis was close
N64 - came in 2nd, but Saturn was clearly dead last of the major consoles
Gamecube - came in a close 3rd behind Xbox but it sold way more games, and the Dreamcast was the loser of that generation
Wii - won, clear winner already

Gameboy- won
Gameboy Advanced - won
DS- won



Nintendo's first big venture into online gaming, Mario Kart DS, was plagued by thousands of yahoos painting pictures of d1cks on their carts and yet people still wonder why Nintendo is so shy about online play.

[Navarr]

Isn't most of the multiplayer in New Super Mario Bros. Wii mostly a novelty anyway? Mario is a 2D platformer, its not really set up to be a multiplayer. Though, the steps they've taken towards being a 2player platformer, I haven't seen anyone do - so its certainly innovation in my book, with or without Online play.

[ok123]

Isn't most of the multiplayer in New Super Mario Bros. Wii mostly a novelty anyway? Mario is a 2D platformer, its not really set up to be a multiplayer. Though, the steps they've taken towards being a 2player platformer, I haven't seen anyone do - so its certainly innovation in my book, with or without Online play.
I havnt really followed New Super Mario Bros Wii that much, but arent there some secrets in the game that can only be reached with at least 2 players? From what i have heard from New Super Mario Bros Wii, i am under this impression at least, but maybe i am mistaken. Maybe it is possible to get all the secrets in the game with just one player as well and that 2 players only makes it easier to get some of the secrets :) Does anyone know?

But ye, i am also under the impression that New Super Mario Bros Wii is mainly designed to be a single player game, and then the multiplayer is just adding more players to the game, which is a good way to do it in my opinion :)

[QrafTee]

When did they ever come in "dead last"?

NES - won, with no body else even coming close
SNES - won, but Genesis was close
N64 - came in 2nd, but Saturn was clearly dead last of the major consoles
Gamecube - came in a close 3rd behind Xbox but it sold way more games, and the Dreamcast was the loser of that generation
Wii - won, clear winner already

Gameboy- won
Gameboy Advanced - won
DS- wonI was thinking the same thing.

[grapeape]

When did they ever come in "dead last"?

NES - won, with no body else even coming close
SNES - won, but Genesis was close
N64 - came in 2nd, but Saturn was clearly dead last of the major consoles
Gamecube - came in a close 3rd behind Xbox but it sold way more games, and the Dreamcast was the loser of that generation
Wii - won, clear winner already

Gameboy- won
Gameboy Advanced - won
DS- won



Nintendo's first big venture into online gaming, Mario Kart DS, was plagued by thousands of yahoos painting pictures of d1cks on their carts and yet people still wonder why Nintendo is so shy about online play.

Ok point taken...I guess we can throw in the saturn and dreamcast though they were doomed from the start. In the 5th gen and the PSX outsold the n64 3:1 not even a close race...for the 6th gen it ment being beat out 7:1...btw the gamecube's close 3rd can be more attributed to sales for 2 years at $99 after the 2nd place console dropped out (nearly 1/3rd of their total sales came in the last 2 years)

The point was that since having any sort of real competition they have been spanked up until this gen...with the way things are going they are likely to get spanked again next time around unless they find a way to catch up. Retailers and analysts are already bitching about the console sales not carrying over to software sales. In fact if you subtract Wii Sports (since in most regions its bundled) and the gimmick releases like Wii Play that bundle in the peripherals and its actually sold less games than the 2nd place console...I dont care how much of a fanboy someone might be thats freakin sad to even think about.

[EL_CAD]

Ok point taken...I guess we can throw in the saturn and dreamcast though they were doomed from the start. In the 5th gen and the PSX outsold the n64 3:1 not even a close race...for the 6th gen it ment being beat out 7:1...btw the gamecube's close 3rd can be more attributed to sales for 2 years at $99 after the 2nd place console dropped out (nearly 1/3rd of their total sales came in the last 2 years)

The point was that since having any sort of real competition they have been spanked up until this gen...with the way things are going they are likely to get spanked again next time around unless they find a way to catch up. Retailers and analysts are already bitching about the console sales not carrying over to software sales. In fact if you subtract Wii Sports (since in most regions its bundled) and the gimmick releases like Wii Play that bundle in the peripherals and its actually sold less games than the 2nd place console...I dont care how much of a fanboy someone might be thats freakin sad to even think about.

Good points. I was going to get a Xbox, but when i went to the store they had a Cube bundle with 2 controllers and Double Dash for $100, so I got that instead.

The 360 have had bundled systems for quite a while, usually with 2 games. So it's more then fair to say that most 360 came with on average one bundled game. Also the 360 has has some controller bundles as well. I got free Pinata Party game with a 360 controller last year, which no one has played yet.
PS3s have had their share of bundled games, but it would be fair to say that most sold without a free game.

89% of Wii owners have Wii Sports. And 44% own Wii Play. So you can't really claim that 2 whole games in the attach rate are bogus, when it only accounts for 1.33, which would most likely be the same for the 360 and their generous bundles. Links Crossbow is the only other bundle that I would put into this argument, but only 7% of Wii owners got that game.

The Xbox is doing great in games sales. They have the most games, which in part has to do with the year head start. Also the 360 usually has the best version of many multiplatform releases which did help sales.

To stereotype the consoles, I would say that the Wii is a big-tent platform bringing in all types of people, from the Nintendo loyal, to new gamers, to gamers that play and own multiple systems, while the PS3 and 360 are mainly for those who are a one console at a time guy. Most of my gaming is done on the PC, while the remainder on my time is pretty evenly split between the 360 and Wii at this point.

I would buy and play more Wii games if the prices dropped as fast as the 360 ones do. Within 3 to 6 months most 360 games can be had for about $30 while the Wii ones are still at $50. I believe this has a major effect on the Wii attach rate.

[sirxlaughs]

Ok point taken...I guess we can throw in the saturn and dreamcast though they were doomed from the start. In the 5th gen and the PSX outsold the n64 3:1 not even a close race...for the 6th gen it ment being beat out 7:1...btw the gamecube's close 3rd can be more attributed to sales for 2 years at $99 after the 2nd place console dropped out (nearly 1/3rd of their total sales came in the last 2 years)

The point was that since having any sort of real competition they have been spanked up until this gen...with the way things are going they are likely to get spanked again next time around unless they find a way to catch up. Retailers and analysts are already bitching about the console sales not carrying over to software sales. In fact if you subtract Wii Sports (since in most regions its bundled) and the gimmick releases like Wii Play that bundle in the peripherals and its actually sold less games than the 2nd place console...I dont care how much of a fanboy someone might be thats freakin sad to even think about.

The PSX outsold the N64, but Nintendo made more money than Sony that generation. The Virtual Boy and Gamecube were Nintendo's biggest failures. Although, I thought the Gamecube was a nice console despite the lack of 3rd party support.

[CZroe]

Ok point taken...I guess we can throw in the saturn and dreamcast though they were doomed from the start. In the 5th gen and the PSX outsold the n64 3:1 not even a close race...for the 6th gen it ment being beat out 7:1...btw the gamecube's close 3rd can be more attributed to sales for 2 years at $99 after the 2nd place console dropped out (nearly 1/3rd of their total sales came in the last 2 years)

The point was that since having any sort of real competition they have been spanked up until this gen...with the way things are going they are likely to get spanked again next time around unless they find a way to catch up. Retailers and analysts are already bitching about the console sales not carrying over to software sales. In fact if you subtract Wii Sports (since in most regions its bundled) and the gimmick releases like Wii Play that bundle in the peripherals and its actually sold less games than the 2nd place console...I dont care how much of a fanboy someone might be thats freakin sad to even think about.
Umm, XBOX didn't "drop out" in the last two years. :rolleyes: And you act like $99 wasn't their target price for the GC all along... like it's a sign of weakness or something. Bull. To pretend that the leaders need to "catch up" in the next gen is ludicrous. Did you forget that they are AHEAD or do you only measure progress by polygon counts and frequencies? That isn't how you compared them in the previous generations... or did you forget that Nintendo's closest competitors were usually inferior? Nintendo played that game and was losing despite having better specs than the PS2 and PSX and you wanna pretend that you're smarter and know what's best for their future despite the current gen PROVING to you that you and previously, they, were wrong. Make up your mind.

While you're at it, chew on this: Nintendo said that they will introduce the tech for next gen HD gaming when it's affordable and makes sense, implying the $200-$250 range. Because the XBOX 360 is under $200, you can clearly see that that time has arrived, though perhaps a little more distant if they want to retain GCN/Wii compatability. They didn't anticipate the Wii being such a success and, thus, aren't ready to introduce their next-gen hardware... but the XBOX 360 and PS3 aren't even half way through their claimed 10-year lifecycles! Nintendo can introduce something cheap and even more advanced than the competition at the end of 2010 and it doesn't matter if Sony and MS scale back their estimates to 7 years or less because all they can do is add bleeding-edge performance along with the unwanted expense. They don't have room to water down future tech and impress enough to start a new upgrade cycle for their current customer base. That's why they are pushing their own motion controlled technologies to extend their current tech rather than push forward when appropriate as Nintendo plans to do. The thing is, this is exactly as Nintendo has always done w/ handheld... push forward when the tech makes sense and is affordable. It's why a black and white Game Boy smeared the Game Gear, Wonderswan, Game.com, and Lynx. It's why the GB Color walked all over the Wonderswan Color, Neo Geo Pocket Color, Game.com Color, etc. It's why the GB Advance walked all over the Game Park 32. It's why the Nintendo DS tore the PSP a new one and continues to dominate to this day. You don't beat Nintendo on value if you are competing with tech... PERIOD. Nintendo finally tooke the lessons learned inthe handheld market and applied them to their console business and the effect was the same. If you think Pokemon alone saved Nintendo in the N64 generation, you are ignorant.

[msanchez]

....but Nintendo made more money than Sony that generation...

That doesn't do much for us though.

[CZroe]

That doesn't do much for us though.

Speak for yourself. Obviously, it did something for some people or else they would not have given up their money for it TO make Nintendo more profitable. Those people are among you. Nintendo brought us some of the most incredible gaming experiences of all time in that generation and I feel sorry for anyone who missed out.

[grapeape]

Umm, XBOX didn't "drop out" in the last two years. :rolleyes: And you act like $99 wasn't their target price for the GC all along... like it's a sign of weakness or something. Bull. To pretend that the leaders need to "catch up" in the next gen is ludicrous. Did you forget that they are AHEAD or do you only measure progress by polygon counts and frequencies? That isn't how you compared them in the previous generations... or did you forget that Nintendo's closest competitors were usually inferior? Nintendo played that game and was losing despite having better specs than the PS2 and PSX and you wanna pretend that you're smarter and know what's best for their future despite the current gen PROVING to you that you and previously, they, were wrong. Make up your mind.

While you're at it, chew on this: Nintendo said that they will introduce the tech for next gen HD gaming when it's affordable and makes sense, implying the $200-$250 range. Because the XBOX 360 is under $200, you can clearly see that that time has arrived, though perhaps a little more distant if they want to retain GCN/Wii compatability. They didn't anticipate the Wii being such a success and, thus, aren't ready to introduce their next-gen hardware... but the XBOX 360 and PS3 aren't even half way through their claimed 10-year lifecycles! Nintendo can introduce something cheap and even more advanced than the competition at the end of 2010 and it doesn't matter if Sony and MS scale back their estimates to 7 years or less because all they can do is add bleeding-edge performance along with the unwanted expense. They don't have room to water down future tech and impress enough to start a new upgrade cycle for their current customer base. That's why they are pushing their own motion controlled technologies to extend their current tech rather than push forward when appropriate as Nintendo plans to do. The thing is, this is exactly as Nintendo has always done w/ handheld... push forward when the tech makes sense and is affordable. It's why a black and white Game Boy smeared the Game Gear, Wonderswan, Game.com, and Lynx. It's why the GB Color walked all over the Wonderswan Color, Neo Geo Pocket Color, Game.com Color, etc. It's why the GB Advance walked all over the Game Park 32. It's why the Nintendo DS tore the PSP a new one and continues to dominate to this day. You don't beat Nintendo on value if you are competing with tech... PERIOD. Nintendo finally tooke the lessons learned inthe handheld market and applied them to their console business and the effect was the same. If you think Pokemon alone saved Nintendo in the N64 generation, you are ignorant.

You say this as if a 4 year console life is a good thing. My point is simply that Nintendo cant just slap together an HD version of the wii in the near future with nothing else separating it and expect to make a dent. Technology wise the Wii is behind...sales numbers are great...but attachment rates support the side of those that think its still just a great gimmick. If everyone has the same gimmick some arguably an even better gimmick what chance will it have to separate itself and actually sell? Im not saying they cant or wont, but I just fail to see what they can possibly do. Maybe the built in pico projector idea what floated around when it was the "revolution"? They have IMHO painted themselves into a corner, they cant cut the current gen too short for frear of angering their current base, they have to introduce something else that takes casual gaming to the next level, and they have to keep from falling further behind in both visuals and processing power so they can keep core gamers as well. Im not attacking Nintendo, I have stated before I have a Wii and enjoy it, I have purchased nearly every core title and most good 3rd party titles...lets just say that between my account and my kids account we have 2 Mario Hat rewards, so its not like im not supporting them, I just see the next gen being a real uphill struggle if they dont come up with a damn good gimmick again. The jury is still out on whether the casual market is a sustainable one, I know lots of gamers with wii's but know far more people that have never bought a console before or havent owned one in years that are now wii owners. My parents for instance have 3 games, Wii Sports, Wii Play (because it gave them a second controller) and Wii Fit, thats it...I keep trying to get my mom to try other stuff but they are happy with their bowling and workout routine, what are they going to be able to offer that will make my mother want a WiiHD?

As for the handhelds, yep they have made a killing on smart decisions, the gameboy lasted forever on a single set of batteries and had tons of 3rd party support, while the gamegear lasted about an hour at a time when rechargeables just weren't financially practical and had very little 3rd party support. You mention lots of handhelds people that most have never even seen in the wild, hell I had to order my wonderswan online back before ordering online was even concidered normal. :) The gamepark even I skipped on and I usually buy everything...its open nature assured that 3rd parties werent even going to bother and with no games where is the possible market? The PSP has been the only serious challenge to Nintendo as far as handhelds go, and Sony managed to **** that one up by making the easiest console to hack since the dreamcast. I know dozens of PSP owners, I dont know any that actually buy games. Sony and its 3rd party developers have mostly ignored the casual market...which is great for gamers...but horrible for sales especially when you concider their target audience is the same one that is most likely to pirate their games to start with.

[EL_CAD]

Quote:

Originally Posted by sirxlaughs View Post
....but Nintendo made more money than Sony that generation...

That doesn't do much for us though.
With no profits there would be no game consoles and no games. Just ask the former Sega-Coleco-Commodore-Atari fanboys what happens when the companies don't make money.

[sirxlaughs]

That doesn't do much for us though.

It means more people were buying Nintendo games. Sounds like happy gamers to me. The PS1 was one of the few, popular consoles I never owned. I've never felt that I missed out on anything. It also helped Nintendo stay in business, which is a good thing in my book.

[msanchez]

Speak for yourself. Obviously, it did something for some people or else they would not have given up their money for it TO make Nintendo more profitable. Those people are among you. Nintendo brought us some of the most incredible gaming experiences of all time in that generation and I feel sorry for anyone who missed out.


Sorry but I don't care for ninty making as much as others did. Do I want them to go under or something? nope, I hope that doesn't happen, but to make it sound like nintendo selling less and turning in a bigger profit than others is in any way helping ME is totally different.

I don't take away from any of nintendo's achievements, I recognize that they push the envelope on some things, but in other things they refuse to follow what we consider the norm, and being different isn't always good in my view, just like always following the flow isn't necessarily the way to go either.

Of course if we go all technical and cause and effect-ish somewhere down the line this might affect me, but so would ms or sony selling more or less. Gaming is a hobby for me, one that's been with me since almost as far back as I remember, but that doesn't mean I'm going to worry about it like it was something I needed in order to continue living. I buy a console, I buy game for that console... that's it. The only thing that affects me is the games available for the console I purchased, and I'll only extend some concern to there being competition among manufacturers. Will the 360's failure rate affect me somehow next gen? probably, will the wii's motion controls and "casual" gaming approach affect me next gen? definitely, it's even affecting me now, will the ps3's initial price affect me next gen? I sure hope so.... I mean all 3 of them should have learned that $600 for a console was a bit much. All that said, it's something I have no control over, and the last thing I need is to concern myself with things over which I have no control. That's why I merely care about what games are available for the console/s I purchased, because I decide what to buy, or not.

@sirxlaughs
I don't think it means more happy gamers were buying nintendo games and/or hardware. It just means that nintendo was making a profit on every console they sold (As opposed to ms and sony), and probably making a bigger profit on every game they sold, so as I said, I don't care about them making MORE MONEY THAN OTHERS did.

[sirxlaughs]

Sorry but I don't care for ninty making as much as others did. Do I want them to go under or something? nope, I hope that doesn't happen, but to make it sound like nintendo selling less and turning in a bigger profit than others is in any way helping ME is totally different.

I don't take away from any of nintendo's achievements, I recognize that they push the envelope on some things, but in other things they refuse to follow what we consider the norm, and being different isn't always good in my view, just like always following the flow isn't necessarily the way to go either.

Of course if we go all technical and cause and effect-ish somewhere down the line this might affect me, but so would ms or sony selling more or less. Gaming is a hobby for me, one that's been with me since almost as far back as I remember, but that doesn't mean I'm going to worry about it like it was something I needed in order to continue living. I buy a console, I buy game for that console... that's it. The only thing that affects me is the games available for the console I purchased, and I'll only extend some concern to there being competition among manufacturers. Will the 360's failure rate affect me somehow next gen? probably, will the wii's motion controls and "casual" gaming approach affect me next gen? definitely, it's even affecting me now, will the ps3's initial price affect me next gen? I sure hope so.... I mean all 3 of them should have learned that $600 for a console was a bit much. All that said, it's something I have no control over, and the last thing I need is to concern myself with things over which I have no control. That's why I merely care about what games are available for the console/s I purchased, because I decide what to buy, or not.

@sirxlaughs
I don't think it means more happy gamers were buying nintendo games and/or hardware. It just means that nintendo was making a profit on every console they sold (As opposed to ms and sony), and probably making a bigger profit on every game they sold, so as I said, I don't care about them making MORE MONEY THAN OTHERS did.

It wasn't just console sales that cinched it for Nintendo. The N64 was more powerful than the PS1. It had to do with games sales. I think the N64 had more million sellers than the PS1. Most of those were probably first party titles, and at $60 a pop on average. You can see how it adds up. The thing with Nintendo making money, is that it allows them to keep pushing the envelope. Mario 64 was the first 3D platforming game with a free roaming camera. N64 brought the the analog stick back to gaming. It certainly wasn't perfect. Many of the problems that plagued the N64 are similar to what Sony is experiencing with the PS3. It wasn't developer friendly, and some aspects of the hardware were gimped by others. Simplicity became the Gamecube's central idea, I think, but Nintendo couldn't shake the negative image it had in the gaming community. No third party support despite being such a good console made the Cube yet another failure. Two hard lessons learned before the advent of the Wii.

edit: Just wanted to add another little blurb about Nintendo's profits and such. Remember that Nintendo are not like Microsoft and Sony. Other than the handheld market, there is basically no other source of revenue for them. If they don't continue profiting, we gamers will stop enjoying their innovations. I, for one, don't want to see Nintendo ever end up like Sega.

[msanchez]

I still don't see things your way, but I completely understand what you mean as far as that *edit* goes and in that respect I do cut them some slack because I know this is exclusively their bread and butter, as opposed to ms and sony.

And again, don't misinterpret my not caring about nintendo's huge margin of profits with me wishing them ill. I would also hate to see nintendo go the way of sega.... even more if they too become a software company and bastardize all their series the way sega has done to sonic.

I understand they are in it to make money, the same way I understand execs have to lie, bugs in game code is here to stay, and a lot of other happenings in the game industry; it doesn't bother me too much (except when I just feel they are insulting my intelligence.... and I don't fancy myself a rocket scientist either) I understand sometimes these are necessary measures, but just because I understand doesn't mean I have to care, and even less that I have to agree with how they do things.