Fact: Nintendo to release HD console + controllers with built-in screen late 2012

[Entropy]

What makes you question that people don't? Social gaming is common. People socialising is common. Meeting up to watch a movie, go out for a meal, play some sport, are all accomplished with social tools. Unless you feel computer games are the sole prerogative of lonely people just wanting to play in isolation, it's quite clear that supporting sociable gaming is necessary to reach a wider audience. Wii and Kinect are promoting sociable gaming. People on PSN are complaining about the lack of sociable features, and people on Live brag about them. So again, what makes you think no-one wants to share their computer entertainments with other people?

It seems as if you socialize over your console, and feel strongly about it since you turn my question of how large that group really is into something very different.

So I'll ask it again - out of roughly 400 million consoles sold in the last 5 years, handheld and stationary, how many are used for online socializing? You need to look squarely at that number to put this issue into proper perspective. My back of the envelope calculations show - a very small percentage. Now, even a small percentage of such a large number is still quite a few people, (and probably quite vocal online), but they do not define the market.

Since Nintendo have stated that they need to be doing more in terms of online features, they probably will. Just how much remains to be seen. But those for whom these features are very important will probably go somewhere else for their gaming fix regardless. So - how big a deal is this, really, for Nintendo?

(To me, it seems as if there are some straight forward game tools that are good to have (necessary being much too strong a word), but that the purely social are unnecessary. In an age where such resources are all accessible over cell phones, having a limited social forum that is accessible over a stationary console when looking at a TV seems incredibly clunky and pointless.)

 

[lilbroK]

It seems as if you socialize over your console, and feel strongly about it since you turn my question of how large that group really is into something very different.

So I'll ask it again - out of roughly 400 million consoles sold in the last 5 years, handheld and stationary, how many are used for online socializing? You need to look squarely at that number to put this issue into proper perspective. My back of the envelope calculations show - a very small percentage. Now, even a small percentage of such a large number is still quite a few people, (and probably quite vocal online), but they do not define the market.

Since Nintendo have stated that they need to be doing more in terms of online features, they probably will. Just how much remains to be seen. But those for whom these features are very important will probably go somewhere else for their gaming fix regardless. So - how big a deal is this, really, for Nintendo?

(To me, it seems as if there are some straight forward game tools that are good to have (necessary being much too strong a word), but that the purely social are unnecessary. In an age where such resources are all accessible over cell phones, having a limited social forum that is accessible over a stationary console when looking at a TV seems incredibly clunky and pointless.)

Well spoken...or written. Though, like I said earlier, Nintendo has already stated how they are going about online. They are leaving it mostly up to the developers. They are not going to have a unified online structure like Microsoft and Sony. They will probably have an online service specifically for Nintendo and its services but it will likely not carry over into 3rd party software.

The most important thing for the Wii U right now is getting as many good games on the console as soon as possible. Software sales hardware.

 

[Deleted member 13524]

I agree that an always-on, integrated 1st party voip system isn't that important, as long as Nintendo provides efficient tools for the developers to implement if they want to.
In some games, voip can be important. In others, it can be downright annoying.

For example, in a co-op FPS, I'd find way more important and useful to be able to target a spot in the map (i.e. touching that spot in the controller's screen), or draw a path for the other teammates to see, than hearing a 12 year-old's high-pitch voice bragging about his score and bitchin' about how his mother is telling him to leave the game.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

It seems as if you socialize over your console, and feel strongly about it since you turn my question of how large that group really is into something very different.

So I'll ask it again - out of roughly 400 million consoles sold in the last 5 years, handheld and stationary, how many are used for online socializing?

I understood that to be a rhetorical question because clearly I'm not going to privvy to such stats - no-one is. I'll return the flipside question to you - how many Wii players who enjoy social gaming in the living room wouldn't mind be able to have the same experience with meeting up with their friends online without having to travel, and chat and play at the same time?

 

[Deleted member 13524]

I'll return the flipside question to you - how many Wii players who enjoy social gaming in the living room wouldn't mind be able to have the same experience with meeting up with their friends online without having to travel, and chat and play at the same time?

Very few, IMO.
The Wii was a console developed and marketed for same-room multiplayer and socializing.
A great success among girls and older family, if you ask me.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

Very few, IMO.

You miss the point. Entropy asked for a specific number, so I do likewise. Without specific numbers we can take the debate to theoreticals which is what I was doing, but Entropy was insisting on real numbers.

 

[patsu]

If they want to attract rather than alienate the core gamers, I feel in-game party system and voice chat is a must. The issue is whether Nintendo can ensure the quality of the MP experience if they are not doing it themselves. It may not be a technical solution.

At the same time, Nintendo can also innovate in so-called social gaming and co-op mechanics perhaps in their own games first. I merely think that lumping the needs under voice chat may be too simplistic. There seems to be a lot of opportunity for improvement there. IMHO, we should not be forced to talk just to pick a game to play together, or strategize. Would be great if there are alternatives or better tools that may be tailored for each game, and for all people.

So-called cross-game voice chat is great for hanging out with buddies while gaming. If Nintendo makes provision for someone to do it, I think it may help to gain street credits among the existing hardcore gamers.

Over on the casual gaming sites, my wife and kid play Flash games with embedded text chat. Although we generally ignore the chat, it gives a human touch to the games. The problem is parental control. Then again Nintendo DS has PictoChat ? Why not release it on WiiU also ? 3DS supports multi-tasking, WiiU should be able to do that too. Slapping a voice chat on top seems natural.

Btw, did Nintendo say anything about web browser support ?

 

[DeadlyNinja]

What about integration with Skype? Do they even need skype?

 

[lilbroK]

*sighs* What part of “Our current direction is how we can take the desires of the third parties and create a system that’s flexible enough to enable them to do the types of things that they might want to do.” is so hard to understand?

Nintendo is leaving it up to the developers. Whatever is in the game will be up to whoever made it. Nintendo is not making a unified online infrastructure. I've pointed this out multiple times. As far as games are concerned they are not involved with the online. There online service will more than likely all be Nintendo oriented just like with the Wii.

 

[Deleted member 13524]

If they want to attract rather than alienate the core gamers, I feel in-game party system and voice chat is a must.

Really?
I consider myself a "core" PC gamer, I'm really pleased with the Wii U as a concept and I'll probably be willing to buy one.. But I couldn't care less if there's an "always-on" voip service in every game.. I'm definitely not going to use the console as a phone.

The issue is whether Nintendo can ensure the quality of the MP experience if they are not doing it themselves. It may not be a technical solution.

But they are doing it themselves, and developers choose to implement it or not. They're just not making it an "always-on" service.

 

[pc999]

But they are doing it themselves, and developers choose to implement it or not. They're just not making it an "always-on" service.

Exactly what it seems to me too.

 

[patsu]

Really?
I consider myself a "core" PC gamer, I'm really pleased with the Wii U as a concept and I'll probably be willing to buy one.. But I couldn't care less if there's an "always-on" voip service in every game.. I'm definitely not going to use the console as a phone.

These days, I think a core console gamers would expect a party system and chat for traditional MP titles like an FPS. PC gamers probably play these games on their PCs anyway.

I'm not referring to an "always-on" VoIP service above, just in-game voice chat. Shifty is saying not all games will have voice chat even if some may need one. e.g., DeadNation needed one but wasn't available at launch.

But they are doing it themselves, and developers choose to implement it or not. They're just not making it an "always-on" service.

Doing what themselves ?

 

[nintenho]

I agree that an always-on, integrated 1st party voip system isn't that important, as long as Nintendo provides efficient tools for the developers to implement if they want to.
In some games, voip can be important. In others, it can be downright annoying.

For example, in a co-op FPS, I'd find way more important and useful to be able to target a spot in the map (i.e. touching that spot in the controller's screen), or draw a path for the other teammates to see, than hearing a 12 year-old's high-pitch voice bragging about his score and bitchin' about how his mother is telling him to leave the game.

That's not how it really works in competitive/tactical fps games where you need to give much more detail and planning to do well. In games like Rainbow 6: vegas, you would get kicked out of every single lobby (not a joke) if you didn't have a mic hooked up. Also for games like Battlefield where every class plays a totally different role, it would be very important to plan with the rest of your squad which loadout to play as and noting your position on the map. Even in Bad Company 2, they had something similar to what you're saying where you press the back button and you can "spot" enemies or call for help but voice communication was still very important.

For Call of Duty or Halo, it's less important to communicate well unless you're playing at a really high level. But for more realistic shooting games it seems like you will be at pretty big disadvantage if you can't talk with other players.

So the next question becomes that if a lot of games are going to have to have voice chat, why don't they expand that to include cross-game voice chat with anybody on your friends list? It would seem easy enough.

 

[patsu]

Assignment of roles can usually be done autonomously since/if everyone can see the squad member list and individual roles. They also know their own strength. I do that all the time since I don't turn on my mic. There are PSN ids I can't pronounce or read anyway.

Sometimes, the leader may have a preference and will solicit for a specific role using voice chat, or text chat if available.


In-game voice chat is extremely helpful in coordinating combat nonetheless.

EDIT: After a while, the best ones are those who can execute without talking. Holy sh*t, some of them are too good to be human (Take down air defense in MAG in first 3 minutes on SVER Acquisition map ? Teach me !).

 

[BRiT]

So I'll ask it again - out of roughly 400 million consoles sold in the last 5 years, handheld and stationary, how many are used for online socializing? You need to look squarely at that number to put this issue into proper perspective. My back of the envelope calculations show - a very small percentage. Now, even a small percentage of such a large number is still quite a few people, (and probably quite vocal online), but they do not define the market.

There's what, at least 10 million Xbox Live Gold subscribers? From January2010's CES: "Nearly 10 million people have logged into Xbox Live's nongaming applications" including "Facebook, Twitter, Netflix, Last.fm, Sky, Canal and Zune." We'll do the math for you: that's 50% of the Xbox Live audience, and those are all paying Gold users.(http://www.joystiq.com/2010/01/06/xbox-by-the-numbers-20m-xbox-live-users-10m-nongaming-39m-xbo/ ) I imagine that number has increased substantially since then.

All those users are used to a consistent interface for party and voice management. I think the consistent party and voice management aspect is really something that has to be experienced in order to appreciate it. This is why those who only ever used PSN fail to comprehend the benefit and those who have used XBL say it's so damn important.

Everyone I know on XBL says there's no way anyone they would ever consider switching over to a system that fails to provide at least on the same base-level of service as XBL.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

Assignment of roles can usually be done autonomously since/if everyone can see the squad member list and individual roles. They also know their own strength. I do that all the time since I don't turn on my mic. There are PSN ids I can't pronounce or read anyway...

There are always workarounds, and the touch screen could be useful. Let's not lose sight of the issue here though, which is selling the Wuu to core gamers. "Your game may not have working chat," isn't a good sell to a lot of Nintendo's intended market. "Playing on you console isolates you from your online friends," isn't a good sales pitch for sociable people. "We offer cross-game chat so you can talk with your friends no matter what your playing, and can coordinate teamwork for a cooperative online experience," is a good checklist feature to help expand interest, and I don't see the logic in abandoning that. Either Nintendo are extremely optimistic about 3rd parties ability to create online experiences - an optimism that flies in the face of historic examples - or they are just wimping out. The 'freedom' card doesn't work for me in any way on this one. I'll be surprised if Joe Gamer buys into Wuu full of enthusiasm for developers no longer hampered by a set of requirements like "common friends list, party formation, clear chat, stable network structure" dictated by the console company. Whereas "we'll provide a clear network structure that ensures every game has access to a common friends list, easy party formation, stable network structure and voice chat" would be received very well.

 

[Entropy]

You miss the point. Entropy asked for a specific number, so I do likewise. Without specific numbers we can take the debate to theoreticals which is what I was doing, but Entropy was insisting on real numbers.

No, I insisted on some kind of acknowledgement from you just how small that group is in relation to the whole game console market.
The DS and the PSP have outsold the stationary consoles, so that is over half right there. The Wii has just under twice the sales of the PS3 and the 360, so mobile consoles and Wii is roughly 3/4s of the market. How large a percentage of PS3 users are social gamers? Of XBox360 players? Shall we say, (and here is where it gets shaky), one fifth of the PS3 players and one third of the XBox360? I believe I'm being generous here, but this should keep the error reasonable. This would mean that roughly one fifteenth, or 7 percent of the console purchases are used for social gaming.

Personally I think the number is smaller. And it doesn't say that the purchases of even this group was actually determined by these particular features. They may simply have liked the nicer graphics allowed by PS360 for instance, and other aspects came along as part of the package.

Again, those who feel they need for instance the specific features of Microsofts offering is going to choose that platform even if Nintendo does improve on their current offering, so with those out of the equation, just how many are left for Nintendo to compete for out of the total market? A few percent, at most. One, two, three even? Now this is a competitive business, and I'm sure that Nintendo wants as large a piece of the pie as they possibly can, so of course they will make some effort. I simply called for some kind of reality check on just how large an issue social gaming is for the success of the Wii U. Now I've provided it myself. With numbers.

Incidentally, if you look at the big sellers for Wii, there is plenty of social games that are big sellers, but tends to be with people in the same room, that you meet and talk to, play a game with, grab something to eat... Then of course there are titles like Wii Fit, Super Mario Galaxy, Zelda, and so on that don't really lend themselves to online community gaming. Honestly, I don't think Nintendo customers pine for online features much. Some will appreciate them if provided of course.

 

[AlphaWolf]

And cell phones have massively out sold all game only devices. Social wins!

I don't do a lot of competitive online gaming, or social gaming. But a sometimes I do enjoy gaming with some friends online. And for that little bit, I would never buy a console that didn't support online.

What people expect now has evolved.

 

[ninzel]

I think it depends on what type of social gaming we are talking about.
If we are talking about the subsection of core gamers that insist on a Live type system,then yes they probably care,but put it down on their list of priorities since it seems to be in the minority.
Facebook type social gamers could potentially be a huge market and they would be wise to try and have some form of unified integration with the WiiU.

 

[Entropy]

I think it depends on what type of social gaming we are talking about.
If we are talking about the subsection of core gamers that insist on a Live type system,then yes they probably care,but put it down on their list of priorities since it seems to be in the minority.
Facebook type social gamers could potentially be a huge market and they would be wise to try and have some form of unified integration with the WiiU.

The thing is that Facebook type social gamers have, well, Facebook. It is already there, on all computers, on cell phones et cetera. Nintendo doesn't need to make a specific Fakebook for WiiU customers. Those aspects of social interaction is already taken care of, far better than any stationary game console can achieve. Nintendo can tap into that by providing a capable browser.

What Nintendo should focus on is to provide tools for online gaming specifically. Whether they should provide a complete (mandatory?) solution, or frameworks for developers to build on, or only supply the basic toolbox for developers to build their own tailored solutions, well, there is room for debate.