WTF? Is Nintendo nuts?

[GwymWeepa]

http://cube.ign.com/articles/611/611909p1.html

"One area that Wada seems to be impressed with is a particularly controversial side of Nintendo's Online plan. In his comments posted at Impress Game Watch yesterday, Iwata states that Nintendo is going through with the idea of letting players connect only to players whom they've met in real life."

 

[hey69]

you never know if you play with a pedophile now dont you?

 

[Iron Tiger]

http://cube.ign.com/articles/611/611909p1.html

"One area that Wada seems to be impressed with is a particularly controversial side of Nintendo's Online plan. In his comments posted at Impress Game Watch yesterday, Iwata states that Nintendo is going through with the idea of letting players connect only to players whom they've met in real life."

I'm sure that's a misquote. I believe that Nintendo will restrict automatic sharing of certain data (as MS should), like personal pictures, location, etc. I imagine they'll take a Friendster-like approach, where you have to verify in some way that you know someone to get all their info or add them to your friends list.

 

[jvd]

well it would be good for children.

 

[GwymWeepa]

http://cube.ign.com/articles/611/611909p1.html

"One area that Wada seems to be impressed with is a particularly controversial side of Nintendo's Online plan. In his comments posted at Impress Game Watch yesterday, Iwata states that Nintendo is going through with the idea of letting players connect only to players whom they've met in real life."

I'm sure that's a misquote. I believe that Nintendo will restrict automatic sharing of certain data (as MS should), like personal pictures, location, etc. I imagine they'll take a Friendster-like approach, where you have to verify in some way that you know someone to get all their info or add them to your friends list.

But why would IGN mention it being controversial (not that it would prove controversial or anything, its like they and other insiders knew about it and it was viewed as controversial), perhaps they knew about this for a while. I'm thinking that the free multiplayer aspect of their online service may be restricted to friends you've met.

 

[Carl B]

But why would IGN mention it being controversial (not that it would prove controversial or anything, its like they and other insiders knew about it and it was viewed as controversial), perhaps they knew about this for a while. I'm thinking that the free multiplayer aspect of their online service may be restricted to friends you've met.

I think because IGN is completely sensationalist. 8)

 

[Confidence-Man]

How could they possibly restrict it to people you've met in real life?

 

[jvd]

How could they possibly restrict it to people you've met in real life?

they could make it so that a key is exchanged when your within a certian area of each other ?

 

[karlotta]

How could they possibly restrict it to people you've met in real life?

DNA and a lawyer.

 

[Iron Tiger]

How could they possibly restrict it to people you've met in real life?

they could make it so that a key is exchanged when your within a certian area of each other ?

On Friendster, you simply have to know the person's real name. As long as people don't use their real names as their screen names, it works well enough.

 

[wco81]

That's dumb.

Part of the appeal of online gaming is meeting new people to play with/against.

Outside of a handful of games, console online games may have trouble finding enough participants. Sometimes, it's hard enough to get a game going.

So they're going to restrict whom you can play?

Why, it's not like you have to exchange name, phone number, credit card numbers and other private info in order to play a frigging game.

 

[Pozer]

well it would be good for children.

From that perspective it makes sense. But thast also in vague way suggests Nintendo isn't aiming the Rev towards adults and by default doesn't have a goal of #1 spot. I mean if you already know the person just go over to their house and play them. I know from Xbox live its hard enough trying to find a game at 3am on a more obscure title. I'll wait for more concrete info though.

 

[Confidence-Man]

How could they possibly restrict it to people you've met in real life?

they could make it so that a key is exchanged when your within a certian area of each other ?

On Friendster, you simply have to know the person's real name. As long as people don't use their real names as their screen names, it works well enough.

Alright, but then I could just tell you my name and you tell me yours even though we don't know each other.

I was thinking it would be something that requires you to actually know someone, like exchanging some kind of ID card that can be read by the revolution.

 

[jvd]

well it can allways be that this filter is defaulted to on . but an adult can turn it off and set a password so that children can't set it off too .

That would work . I think everyone can agree that it is a good idea to do that .


However it is dumb to restrict everyone to only people u met . While its nice to know who you are playing with and to chill with them when you've had a hard day of work and can't hang out . But sometimes there isn't anyone around

 

[GwymWeepa]

I'm envisioning a nightmare scenario where the revolution is meant to be very portable, and you need to basically get your machine within 30 feet of someone you want to make a "buddy"...otherwise online play is gonna cost ya.

 

[Evil_Cloud]

I'm envisioning a nightmare scenario where the revolution is meant to be very portable, and you need to basically get your machine within 30 feet of someone you want to make a "buddy"...otherwise online play is gonna cost ya.

If you could only play against friends, why the hell would Nintendo launch an online service? One of their initial statements years back was that they didn't want to go online because you could just play at home with friends... Doesn't make sense, and I am guessing it's a mistranslation and a lack of details. Just wait for the moment the service is properly unveiled.

 

[GwymWeepa]

I'm envisioning a nightmare scenario where the revolution is meant to be very portable, and you need to basically get your machine within 30 feet of someone you want to make a "buddy"...otherwise online play is gonna cost ya.

If you could only play against friends, why the hell would Nintendo launch an online service? One of their initial statements years back was that they didn't want to go online because you could just play at home with friends... Doesn't make sense, and I am guessing it's a mistranslation and a lack of details. Just wait for the moment the service is properly unveiled.

The whole "cost ya" part would come in if you wanted to play multiplayer against "non friends"...so imagine an Xbox live like service which you would play for free against friends, but had to pay to play against anyone else...sorta like that.

 

[Evil_Cloud]

Nintendo said their service would be free, with additional costs being charged for MMORPG's or content download by third parties.

It's probably a 'friend filter'/sort of parent lock for younger children to play online.

 

[Titanio]

Crikey, how typical to aim straight for the (probably inaccurate) negative with regards to Nintendo, and completely ignore all the very positive stuff being said in that article. I feel like starting a new thread with this, but oh well.

The stance Square Enix takes on the new networking plan in relation to Revolution is the most intriguing. "What increased our interest further," states Wada regarding the networking plan, "is that the next step is already being prepared for Revolution." Nintendo's networking plan is, according to Wada, "not just a portable, not just a console -- it's exactly what we wanted in that it's the birth of a completely new platform."

Wada finishes off on the note of support from Square Enix: "From here on, we'll have to challenge ourselves with content in response to what Nintendo offers. We would like to give strong support."

But I guess starting a thread with something like "SquareEnix says Revolution online is 'exactly what we wanted'" would just be too positive for Nintendo! I would have thought that such lip service couldn't get a lot better - a key third party getting enthusiastic about Nintendo's next-gen online platform, of all things. Who'd have thunk it?

 

[wco81]

The way Nintendo, coming late to online, could innovate is not with the service features but with games or unique gameplay.

Just as Miyamoto devised new gameplay mechanics, esthetics, control for 3D games with Mario64, he could come up with new online ideads. Or just extend the big Nintendo franchises to the online arena.

Not with some service gimmicks.