DS Online Play to Cost a Fee

[bapenguin]

Well, the free online play (http://www.evilavatar.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1962) didn't last long. According to this translated article (http://translate.google.com/translate?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.watch.impress.co.jp%2 Fgame%2Fdocs%2F20050509%2Fninten.htm&langpair=ja%7Cen&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&prev=%2Flanguage_tools) (Thanks Kotaku for the link) the Nintendo DS will offer online play through WiFi technologies via a standard WiFi router. Nintendo’s president Satoru Iwata told the Japanese website that the DS and Revolution will connect via this protocol, and that some 3rd party games may require a monthly fee.

If the handheld is going to have a fee for online play, how do they expect the console to support it for free? The more complicated console games will require more bandwidth etc, and will certainly have more overhead costs involved.

[KarmaGhost]

I'm puzzled.

[Adam Blue]

hahaha. this makes that other topic funny. But I think they would at least make the handheld portion free. And like you said...what would that make the consoles online plan???

Let's carry this on over from that other Ninty thread shall we?

[civilstrife]

This is a TOTAL mistranslation.

The original Japanese article states that third parties can charge a fee IF THEY WANT.
But, All Nintendo games will be free. I HIGHLY doubt there will be many games that charge a fee.

This news post needs to be taken down or edited before this gets out of hand.

I am completely unimpressed that Evil Avatar would post a program based translated article as NEWS.

[PotatoNinja]

An Evil Avatar newspost mistranslating something Nintendo said? Say it ain't so.

[eatme]

"If the handheld is going to have a fee for online play, how do they expect the console to support it for free?"

By "they", are you referring to the random people spouting unsubstantiated rumors that Revolution will have free online play? In that case, I don't know. I also don't know why anyone would give them any credibility.

[Doctor Setebos]

This is a TOTAL mistranslation.

The original Japanese article states that third parties can charge a fee IF THEY WANT.
But, All Nintendo games will be free. I HIGHLY doubt there will be many games that charge a fee.

This news post needs to be taken down or edited before this gets out of hand.

I am completely unimpressed that Evil Avatar would post a program based translated article as NEWS.What he said. Nintendo stated plainly that you will be able to connect to a WiFi access point for free and play Nintendo DS games online for free, but they are not forcing 3rd party publishers to provide online content free of charge. So it leaves the door open for some publishers to charge for content, but it doesn't automatically mean that all of a sudden everything is now pay for play. Get it right.

[bapenguin]

I did say that SOME games will require a fee, not that all games.

You Nintendo fanboys are always so self defensive. I'll edit the text to make it clearer and so you can unbunch your panties.

[CapnBob]

Bap, you have confused the word COULD for the word WILL, which kind of makes the title of your post and your following editorial comment a bit... hmmm... asshole-ish? You jumped the gap between "We have no plans for fees but we won't prevent other publishers from charging them for their games" to "there are definitely going to be fees to play games online with the DS."

[sTubbs]

I did say that SOME games will require a fee, not that all games.

You Nintendo fanboys are always so self defensive. I'll edit the text to make it clearer and so you can unbunch your panties.

I know, it is unbelievable how fast they started to claw for your throat. And then, they began to say exactly what you said in your post, where it clearly states that only SOME games may have a fee. Everyone just needs to calm down with the ravenous fanboy-ism.

Anyways, I do not see why Nintendo offering online for free is a big deal. There have been no indications or proof that this system will be as sophisticated or as centralized as Live. It sounds as though online will be similar to what is done on the PS2. That is, different companies can go about doing things however they want. While I see no real disadvantage to either of these systems, the centralized nature of Live does allow it to provide some nice extra features. In any case, I am interested in just how Nintendo plans to enter the online world.

[Roc Ingersol]

Who cares if it's free? PC internet gaming is already free.
And you know what? I'd still rather pay MS $50/year to play on Live.

Should Nintendo deliver a Live-caliber gaming experience that's free, then maybe I'd consider it some sort of 'challenge' to the idea of paying for Live. But until then: whatever.

[PacerDawn]

If the handheld is going to have a fee for online play, how do they expect the console to support it for free? The more complicated console games will require more bandwidth etc, and will certainly have more overhead costs involved.
Because it's new and they can. The main reason for the fee is not because it costs more to upkeep, but because people will pay it. Typically online services cost cash on portable devices, even when they don't on non-portable ones. Take for example AOL messenger (AIM). On my PC, it's free, but on my Sprint PCS phone, it costs $2 a month to use???

Rip-off.

[mkelehan]

How DARE they give third parties the option to charge for games the way they want!

Look, the service is free. But, third parties can charge for using their games online, if they want. Nothing has changed.

[thecrazyd]

Bap, you are a total dick for this fucking inexcusable flamebait. Thats like saying online PC gaming costs money because MMOs charge for it. This is bullshit and you know it. The service is fucking free.

[if76]

The reason so many people are up in arms about this post is because it begins by saying that it contradicts the post about free Nintendo online when in fact it doesn't. Of course some games will require a fee. For example MMORPG's, which require the publisher to run its own game servers, have upkeep costs and may well pass these on to the user. Games like FPS's on the other hand can be hosted locally so Nintendo only has to furnish the match-making service which costs virtually nothing to run.

[jeffool]

hah, I hate to say it, I'm siding with the Nintendophiles here, ba. I mean, I don't even own a GameCube or DS. But saying "DS Online Play to Cost a Fee" would be like saying "PS2 Online Play to Cost a Fee." It doesn't. I can play SOCOM any time I want. But bet your ass Final Fantasy costs monstly cash.

[falak]

This is exactly what I said they'd do. They have laid down protocols and standards and used a distributed system (probably to save money). No big deal, really. I still think the revolution will go for a more centralized system.

I don't see how a more complicated console game is going to require huge bandwidth. How much data do you need to send/receive per second? Unless you mean more participants per game, I don't think the backend is going to be sending/receiving much more data than the current generation. I'm talking game variable data here, not movies, music, etc.

[Switcher]

http://www.gamespot.com/news/2005/05/09/news_6123887.html

This is GameSpot's version of the same article.

[bapenguin]

Bap, you are a total dick for this fucking inexcusable flamebait. Thats like saying online PC gaming costs money because MMOs charge for it. This is bullshit and you know it. The service is fucking free.

Why yes...yes I am. You people need to get a grip with reality. It's a page that was translated from japanese that I read. I read the article on Kokatu, then followed the link. It appeared to say the same thing. I posted it. People yelled and screamed, I changed it. People continue to yell it scream.

Go outside, take a deep breath, enjoy fresh air. Now go back to your moldy basement and wait for mom to call you for dinner.

[civilstrife]

eh... Bapenguin, I think you need to know when to just admit your mistake. I pointed out a falsity in the news post. I would if it were anything. Your cries of fanboyism are pretty low.

And even after your edit, the title and subsequent comment are still misleading.
And even then, the whole news post is just kind of useless. When has a company EVER disallowed a third party to charge for online play?

[KarmaGhost]

I'm sorry bap, you saw something that appeared to be news worthy and now you're getting shit for it. I very much doubt you posted this looking for it to become "flamebait."

[bapenguin]

eh... Bapenguin, I think you need to know when to just admit your mistake. I pointed out a falsity in the news post. I would if it were anything. Your cries of fanboyism are pretty low.

And even after your edit, the title and subsequent comment are still misleading.
And even then, the whole news post is just kind of useless. When has a company EVER disallowed a third party to charge for online play?

I DID admit my mistake. Misleading? I bolded the words for gods sake.

[see colon]

i don't know, the wording used in the original post is pretty... i don't know if this is a word... flamebaity. take the first sentence...
Well, the free online play didn't last long.

anyway, i can already see where this argument is going, rumers will be thrown around for a while but eventualy bap and "the accusers" will settle out of court for an undisclosed amount, neither side addmiting to any wrongdoing. years later when bap is running for governor allogations of his wrongdoing will be brought to the forfront of media attention. bap will of course deny any "sexual relations with that woman", "groaping", or "fanboyism", but admit to enjoy sleeping with his xbox, fully clothed, and that in the past, he had been on roudy internet gaming news site, and that he could have offended people with his "playfullness".

[MosBen]

Some people take gaming news VERY seriously...

[jacktion]

Wow, I just checked the site and boy is that title misleading. I read some of the previous posts and penguin says he fixed it? If so I'd hate to see it before. I knew Evil Avatar had an irrational hatred of Nintendo but posting lies is just wrong. Oh well, if Evil Avatar wants to become widely known as a place for spreading false internet spam than that is their choice. I guess we will have to go elsewhere to get real news.

The title "DS Online play to cost a fee" is clearly a lie. Nintendo said all their games will be free. Nintendo just said that if other companies want to charge a fee they can. Most companies will not because it would be competing against free Nintendo product.

[bapenguin]

i don't know, the wording used in the original post is pretty... i don't know if this is a word... flamebaity. take the first sentence...

Well...that article I linked said Nintendo's service would be, and I quote:totally free

This would make me think it's not. See, I can have fun with semantics too! :D

btw, I did update the title, but for some reason the main news page doesn't take the updated title. If you look at the top of this thread you'll see the new improved Piss off Everyone Nintendo 2.0 Title.

[Knite]

And even then, the whole news post is just kind of useless. When has a company EVER disallowed a third party to charge for online play?

See: Xbox and Xbox live, circa 2001-2004
Electronic Arts would not release Xbox online playable games because Microsoft refused to allow EA to put an additional charge within live to play EA games online.

just sayin....

[see colon]

you're making it worse bap. seriously, everybody makes mistakes, that's fine, but you are and have been misrepresenting the articles in question. the service is free. if other companies charge to play their games they can. but the service is free.

hell, you still have to pay for an ISP, so nothing online is free. this is going to be my defense if the RIAA comes after me for having downloaded anything music related in the past. "screw you, RIAA, i paid for that music. check my cable bill." it doesn't work there and it doesn't work here.

i tried to be civil, poke fun at the situation and not you. that obviously doesn't help you understand how a service might be free, but prerequistes and certain content might not be.

[jeffool]

btw, I did update the title, but for some reason the main news page doesn't take the updated title. If you look at the top of this thread you'll see the new improved Piss off Everyone Nintendo 2.0 Title.

Heh, you're a good guy ba.

[bapenguin]

you're making it worse bap. seriously, everybody makes mistakes, that's fine, but you are and have been misrepresenting the articles in question. the service is free. if other companies charge to play their games they can. but the service is free.


What service? Connecting to a wireless access point? That's called a service now? Hmm.... I never used the word service anywhere in my newspost.

[Borys]

Whoa, looks like I missed a shitstorm, eh bap?

[bapenguin]

Whoa, looks like I missed a shitstorm, eh bap?

Ya...it's a slow day at work, figured I'd have a little fun. Now it's time to go home.

[Rakael]

Goddamn people are getting serious about this shit. I agree with bap, go outside and do something other than game/post about gaming/hump your gaming system. ;)

[see colon]

Hmm.... I never used the word service anywhere in my newspost.
it wasn't in your news post, but...
Well...that article I linked said Nintendo's service would be, and I quote:totally free

i've been a pretty loyal reader for years now, since the shit hit the fan at VE this has been my primary source for gaming news. i click on sponsored links on the front page and sometimes buy things from those venders when it's not financialy motivating for me to do so (ie it's not any cheaper than i can get localy) just beause i know it helps support EA. but seriously, after the way i've seen you act today i'm considering never coming back.

you are instigating an argument between yourself and the readers with the original news post and your words in this thread! if you walked into a store and someone treated you, as a customer, this way i'm sure you'd feel the same way i feel now.

for the record, i could care less if nintendo or anyone else charges to use their devices online. it;s the way bap is acting that's pissing me off.

[ElectricMonk]

sometimes i think ea likes to troll for comments

[Phades]

See: Xbox and Xbox live, circa 2001-2004
Electronic Arts would not release Xbox online playable games because Microsoft refused to allow EA to put an additional charge within live to play EA games online.

just sayin....

EA didn't want to release on Xbox because they didn't like MS controlling all the servers, it had nothing to do with them wanting to charge players. Look at PS2, EA doesn't charge there. That's why when you play an EA game on Xbox Live now you're actually routed outside to an EA server. It's some deal they made with MS.... consequently it's also why Burnout 3's online was broken at first :p

Oh, and Sega had a game that DID charge. Phantasy Star Online had/has a monthly fee.

[PotatoNinja]

Bolding is fun.

Some posters on Evil Avatar have a noted distate for Nintendo, and as a result most forum threads regarding anything Nintendo does quickly dissolve into console flame-wars and accusations that anyone who might not share the poster's view is a Nintendo fanboy.

[Rakael]

Jesus guys switch to boxers, maybe you'll chill out a bit. Even if penguin is instigating a fight, who really gives a flying rats ass? You act as if this is some affront to everything you hold dear. Its a damned online forum, grow up and get a fucking life.

Edit: And if you want to leave over something as trivial as this, your loss.

[Deadend]

I am sorry, what was the problem with the story? I managed to read what Bap wrote and understood that the system may not be totally free as 3rd parties may charge money for their products. If you had trouble understanding what Bap wrote, then please go play in traffic.

[fushi]

Maybe we should talk about "how you hit the forest DS (the tentative name)" instead?

[YoungAlCapone]

This will probably get me banned but this place is starting to remind me more and more of the U.S. of A. I love the place and the people I share it with but cannot stand the fuckers who run it.

The title was misleading, all it took was an update and explanation but instead Bap decided it would be much better to be a dick to all of the posters and then tell us to fuck off. I remember when I first started reading EA the atmosphere was considerably different than it is now, but this is still the best site for gaming news so I will stick around.

[bobbler]

Deadend:

I believe the original title was "DS Online Play to Cost a Fee".

Thats just flat out poor 'journalism', regardless of if this is some forum where gamers, that all (apparently) live in their parent's basement, come.

And thats why people got their undies in a bundle.

[bapenguin]

Alright, let me set things straight then I'm going to stop posting in this thread.

The original article on Kokatu said that there would be pay for play stuff on the DS.
The original translated article linked on Kokatu said there would be pay for play stuff on the DS.

Someone here said the google translation was wrong, and not every game would require a cost, so I changed it. I didn't even look to back that shit up. I changed it because someone in OUR forums said the translation was wrong.

Then Gamespot or Gamespy put out something that basically confirmed it. Good no harm done.

2 Problems came out of this:

1) I changed the title because it was misleading, when I created the newspost, it made sense because I didn't know the translated article was wrong. The problem was, it updated the title in the thread, but not on the front page.
2) A millisecond after I hit the submit button I had 4 replies to this thread saying I'm anti-Nintendo. Personal attacks flew, and of course the natural reaction is to defend yourself.

Someone said, "all it took was an udpate"...and I did update it. But that didn't satisfy people, the fact that I spat on their holy grail or whatever couldn't be erased. I never told anyone to fuck off (well maybe one person, but I didn't use the words fuck off)

Some people really need to take a chill pill, I am not anti-Nintendo, or anti-anything (ok, well Anti-Electronic Arts, but who isn't?). Personally, I'd rather see a FREE online everything, why would I think it's good Nintendo is charging?

Anyway, Happy Monday everyone, it's over. Go enjoy some Guild Wars or Halo 2 on Live, or finish up God of War or Resident Evil or something. Or if it's nice out, Cut the grass like I just did.

[Sykus]

The title was misleading. The info was misleading. But once I read the entire thing I was able to discern what the article was talking about by using my own power of rational thought - the same process everyone should use when digesting any piece of news, be it about their hobby or otherwise.

Yeah Bap could have handled it better. So could all the people who started throwing out wild accusations instead of keeping a level head.

Oh, and for the record, I'm 28, married, and own 2 paid-off cars and a nice house in the 'burbs. Parents basement? Not quite. What is it with people on internet forums who have to resort to name calling whenever something happens they don't agree with?

[Kelegacy]

goddamn, that's what I get for working during the day...missing out on shitslinging. Oh well, looks like the storm has passed. :(

[Mojopin]

...it's the way bap is acting that's pissing me off.

Well hell, someone has gotta do it right? I mean, how else are they going to generate readers and more advertising deals, post honest unbiased news? Getting people riled up is what Evil could do best so I'm guessing Bap is under orders to do the same. From this post I would say Bap has taken the reigns from Evil nicely... ;)





Note: not a diss, just been coming to this sight for almost 5 years and nothing really has changed besides the posters and the look of the site, which in someways is good and bad. There will always be bias from posters and editors and that is that... if you guys don't like it, well.... :eek:

[Heretic Machine]

What this means is that Nintendo's "online plan" is the same as Sony's -> Free For All. No, that doesn't mean you get to play for free, just that developers can do whatever the hell they want, not cool. This is not XBOX Live, this is more like what the Gamecube already has, but appearently with games that use it.

I'm not impressed, and this pushes me further towards the decision to sell off my GBA/DS and all the games to try and scrounge up money for a PSP.

[civilstrife]

Wow... I posted about an innacurate news post. I had no idea it would erupt into THIS.

A millisecond after I hit the submit button I had 4 replies to this thread saying I'm anti-Nintendo.
But for the record Bap, a quick look at the first page would reveal that you were the first to come out with guns waving. You came out with
You Nintendo fanboys are always so self defensive. I'll edit the text to make it clearer and so you can unbunch your panties.
Before ANYONE had said anything about you being anti Nintendo.

I know this is a fan run site, but I just expected more from it than to have the editor in cheif bash me for pointing out an innacuracy.

[Liquidize105]

Google trans strikes again!

"It's better than nothing".

No it's not! If it is, then why's bapenquin getting carried out on a stretcher? :D

[pacmanfever]

What this means is that Nintendo's "online plan" is the same as Sony's -> Free For All.

I'm not impressed, and this pushes me further towards the decision to sell off my GBA/DS and all the games to try and scrounge up money for a PSP.

so what you're saying is nintendo's online plan is the same as sony's, and that makes you want to dump a nintendo product and pick up a sony one. :confused:

[Liquidize105]

I know this is a fan run site, but I just expected more from it than to have the editor in cheif bash me for pointing out an innacuracy.
Let me correct you on that: That's why I love EA. We're all just human, and nobody makes excuses about it. That includes you for wanting to represent yourself in writing, so does bap. You only got his one mistake to point out, but he's got like half a dozen chewing on his back.

Ahaha I had that done to me several times for reasons even more ambiguous than this.

[Bone]

My boxers are unbunched, and I own all 3 consoles and love them equally... but that whole post (and subsequent flames defending it) rub me the wrong way. Not that I'm pissed... I just didn't expect this site to start acting like the National Enquirer. At least when Evil bashes Nintendo, he does it for the many valid reasons Nintendo gives us to do so.

For the record, bap... Nintendo is not charging for the service, no matter how you parse the semantics. Your article as it stands is utter bullshit.

[Savok]

You know what I can't stand?

This mentality in all media that it's ok to put your own personal spin on the facts of a story. Yes EvA is all about being a highly opinionated asshole (christ it's why I'm here), but you're supposed to let the facts stand for themselves before pouring venom on them

[TrackZero]

I know, it is unbelievable how fast they started to claw for your throat. And then, they began to say exactly what you said in your post, where it clearly states that only SOME games may have a fee. Everyone just needs to calm down with the ravenous fanboy-ism.

Anyways, I do not see why Nintendo offering online for free is a big deal. There have been no indications or proof that this system will be as sophisticated or as centralized as Live. It sounds as though online will be similar to what is done on the PS2. That is, different companies can go about doing things however they want. While I see no real disadvantage to either of these systems, the centralized nature of Live does allow it to provide some nice extra features. In any case, I am interested in just how Nintendo plans to enter the online world.

To me it's more that the subject of the article is completely misleading without reading further, meaning I'll have more people come up to me today saying "hey, I hear Nintedo's going to charge to play on their network" because 50% of the people out there never seem to read past a headline. I hate having to be the person to correct everyone who's too lazy to read an article.

[Rakael]

It was a bad translation that started all this. Bap tried to change it (and I was here for the whole thing, so I know) on the...'recommendations' of certain posters. By that I mean screaming, jihad-esque threats against his very soul. Certain people just had to take it as a personal insult. You all know EA is tied in with Micro$oft bigtime (I love that sig), so EA always goes out of their way to bash your precious Nintendo products (BTW, before you start slinging shit, the 'Cube is the only console I own).

I too am finished with this thread now, though it was fun while it lasted. And all smack-talk aside (which is what all that was from me...its on the internet for godsakes, I don't take it seriously in any way), cut the man a break and please just chill. Everyone makes mistakes.

Remember what that famous picture said, "arguing on the internet is like the special olympics: even if you win, your still retarded."

Please just sit back, take a drink of whatever you have at hand, and smile. Be happy that you have the opportunity to post on forums such as these. That you can play the DS or whatever console/handheld your heart desires. In the end, if all we have to worry about is whether or not the DS will have fee's for online play, we have pretty damned good lives wouldn't you say?

[TrackZero]

I'm taking it as well as can be expected Rakael, but there's no reason that right now Bap hasn't changed the sensationalist headline (which he could do with the click of the edit button), he did fix the body, it's the subject that's now just bothering me. Something like "Nintendo Online will be pay for some titles." (Note, I'm even going further there and putting "will be" instead of "may", which is really what was said. Just using logic that obviously some will be pay.)


Nevermind I see it now reads "DS Online Play May Cost a Fee" which is good.