Nintendo and its ingenious plan to gimp online gaming
Thursday, April 3rd, 2008 at 11:27am by Jack
Nintendo and its approach to online gaming has been pretty perplexing to guys like us, huh? Friend Codes head us off at every pass like some small town sheriff drunk with power; servers groan and creak when we attempt to Brawl with friends and strangers alike; and don’t get us started on trying to chat in-game, right?
Most of us are optimists, I’d like to think, and deep down we give Nintendo the benefit of the doubt. Soon, we say, soon they’ll get it right and we’ll be seamlessly battling it out online tossing taunts at friends while the latest Wii Connect 24 update downloads in the background, complete with an “adults only” Friend Code nullifier that essentially makes the annoying online gatekeeper a thing of the past.
But I’m not an optimist. I don’t believe any of that. Two different things happened this week that lead me to believe none of it will ever happen. This has been Nintendo’s plan all along. The ironic thing about it all? It’s going to work.
The Internet is infamous for creating tremendous amounts of drama around niche products, games or persons to the point where even intelligent, well-educated individuals start to believe their own bullshit because everyone around them is a yes-man.
At the pinnacle of these phenomena, bystanders looking on from the outside can be forgiven for thinking they’re missing out on the next big thing, for such is the intensity of the fervor surrounding them that it would be all but impossible not to think such things. On the other hand, those on the inside of the Internet maelstrom, who are actively reading every blog post and forum post and commenting themselves, could also be forgiven for thinking that they are experts on the subject. That’s because they are so immersed in a particular thing; they have researched and become one with every perceivable bit of information about it, that they could not possibly be wrong. Their opinion on a subject has become fact, bolstered in it authenticity by nothing more than the opinions of similarly-minded people.
But then we peel things away. Ron Paul turns out to have little to no support; the Assassin’s Creed marketing hype train turns out to be bigger and more robust than its game play; and online gaming’s true importance is discovered to be the gaming afterthought, tacked on at the end as a feature to appease the vocal minority.
The Online Gaming Momentum Myth
You are an echo chamber.
The first evidence that presented itself this week was a study from the oft-cited NPD Group. The big news from the report was that 72% of Americans said they were playing video games. It was a 9% increase year-over-year. That’s awesome. Especially for a Nintendo blog, but I won’t beat the “who I think did the lion’s share of expansion” drum needlessly here. What really caught my eye was what else the report discovered: the amount of people playing online was much lower than expected. Only 42% of people said they play games online. Forty-two percent is quite a lot, but the thing about %’s is they don’t really matter by themselves–you have to look at trends over time to see how they really stack up. According to NPD, the number was only a 2% increase from last year. A 2% increase, year-over-year, for a market that saw its biggest numbers in more than a decade during 2007. A year that saw such online greats as Halo 3 and Call of Duty 4.
Now, the 42% number is impressive, but what if I told you they were all PC players? They are: 90% of those who said they play online do so through their PCs. Only 19% play on a game console or portable. Again, 19% is respectable, sure, but not when year-over-year the overall growth was just 2%, and it’s 19% of 42% of the whole.
On a related note Infinity Ward recently boasted that 1.3 million people were playing COD4 every day. News outlets, predictably, were quick to heap praise on that number (which was only Xbox Live players, PSN numbers were “not available,” probably because they were significantly lower). The point here is I think we just found out where that 19% resides. All in one place and all for the roughly the same kind of game.
This isn’t to say I hate online gaming. While my critics will say that’s exactly what I’m trying to accomplish here, (in addition to yet another Jack penned Nintendo-related Infendogasm) it’s not — I just really, really hate Internet echo chambers. They suffocate progress and turn people off to things outside the bubble. Poopski to that any day of the week.
“Despite the buzz in the industry regarding online gaming, it is still relatively small compared to offline gaming,” said Anita Frazier, an industry analyst for the NPD Group. “There is still a large, untapped market for gaming in general and online gaming in particular.” Untapped market. Potential for growth. That’s excellent.
Young players are growing up with online gaming in their blood. Gamers 2 to 12 hold more than 25% of the online gaming market; those aged 18 to 24 have 10%. There’s a huge growth opportunity there, but the current echo chamber model that exists around online gaming makes it impossible for the Xbox Live strategy to expand much beyond the 19% it presently commands.
Why? Where’s the proof in that besides you being a ranting biased fan-man? Well, I said there were two items this week, so let’s look at exhibit #2.
The Obnoxious Online Gamer
Sowing the seeds of his own self-defeat.
Gamasutra, by way of Kotaku, has a fascinating interview up this week with former Microsoft game user research head Bill Fulton. The topic? Creating online games that don’t turn off new-to-the-fold gamers with bigoted hate speech, juvenile voice chat conversations and smutty text chat/player handle pics.
From the ex-MS himself: “The online behavior of our customers is dramatically reducing our sales, and continues to stunt the growth of our industry. Non-gamers simply don’t love games enough to put up with the crap they get online. The reason they would consider playing online is to have fun with other people — and right now, playing games online with strangers rarely delivers that for anyone outside the hardcore demographic.”
He never says “Xbox Live” in the interview, but as Kotaku notes, a former Xbox man talking about the trials and tribulations of online gaming doesn’t really have to.
So here we have it. A vocal minority of gamers who think online gaming is the mecca of gaming because all they do is hang around inside an echo chamber that produces stories, facts and numbers that bolster their opinion. An opinion that really only adds up to 19% of an industry comprised of hundreds of millions of people. A vocal minority that, given the margin of error for a typical report is — what, +-3%? — has not grown at all year over year. And it’s a vocal minority that will not grow given the fact that MS itself realizes the super successful Xbox Live online system has maxed out and is anathema to non-traditional gamers who are flooding the channel en masse this year and beyond.
And yet, according to NPD, there is incredible growth potential for console online gaming. What is an industry to do? I think that’s a perfect point in time to start talking about Nintendo’s strategy, don’t you?
Nintendo’s Gimped Online Strategy: Sly like a Star Fox
An industry with 20% playing online demands a 20% effort.
To date, Nintendo has been more than happy to throw everyone into an online gaming environment that’s akin to freezing cold bathwater. The experience has been distinctly un-fun, unwelcoming, and if you’re a real online gaming fanatic, you noticed that the frigid temps did much to quell the raging hardon you get when you log online to dish out headshots and snarky voice chat insults to kids who should probably be doing their homework.
For many inside the online echo chamber, Nintendo’s approach to online has been maddening. I’ll done my hypothetical disgruntled player hat for this one… “Friend Codes? Jigga please. Annoying as all hell and completely worthless because I want to play with my friends without interruption. No voice chat? OK, that I can understand because it’s early and the little kids and all — but no text chat either?! And how about those Friend Codes — did I mention those yet!?!?”
Anyway, I hope you’ll see by now that complaining about online to Nintendo is like talking to a wall. They knew what NPD was going to report before NPD did because they did their homework.
If I can go back to the bathtub analogy for a moment, Nintendo’s strategy all along has been to warm things very slowly. They had to, because non-traditional gamers have no idea how to swim.
Motion controls, developer prices, and the hardware itself are all part of this same interconnected strategy. As for online, it’s a cog in the wheel too, but to do as the minority demands, and make it a bigger cog than all the rest would doom Nintendo Wi-Fi to Xbox Live’s fate. A niche populated by niches. There’s no growth potential in that. In this regard, I think it’s pretty safe to say that Nintendo, at least with its online efforts, has been exactly in line with the industry trends–you’d agree that they’ve been exuding about 20% of their effort on online, wouldn’t you? That 20% is pretty substantial for completely new gamers, who would probably find it fascinating that the random Joe they’re battling in Brawl is somewhere halfway across the country–but they don’t want to talk to them. That comes later.
As a company that exists to make money, Nintendo has sought to remake gaming in its image. Eventually, this will include online play. But as I said, it will come later. That sounds extremely arrogant to some, even to me at times, and will probably have a few older gamers tripping flashbacks to the 1990’s. However, if your strategy is to bring new people into the gaming world it makes perfect sense. To keep video games fresh and away from a 1980s-era crash, it is also imperative. That’s because these new cas-core people are the ones who in the past would have otherwise been content to laugh gaming off and move on. This is what the overwhelming majority of people have done for the past decade.
What this means is Nintendo is going to have to be slow, methodical and at times incredibly mean to its established base. To their credit, Nintendo has managed to play the abusive husband perfectly. They’ll cut off the spigot just long enough to start hearing the complaints, and then they’ll throw a Super Smash Bros. Brawl sized bone into the fray to get the whirlwind started up again. They’ll even delay it a few months to tweak the online components a little while ultimately delivering a gimped online product. Bait and switch.
In the end, the second shoe will drop, and we’ll get something entirely new and different from Nintendo in the online space. You’re seeing the beginnings of it now, roughshod and gritty, but that’s what’s been necessary for the strategy to succeed. As gaming shifts incessantly towards an online model (distribution, playing, socializing, etc), Nintendo will slowly but surely introduce its new crop of gamers to it in a way that’s guaranteed not to scare them away or leave any bad taste in their mouth whatsoever. The bathwater will warm, I assure you. Some will see that as a Disneyfication of online gaming, but if you look at the FACTS and the NUMBERS, it’s what the majority of people really want anyway.
April 3rd, 2008 at 11:53 am
Ironic, isn’t it? I’m still laughing.
April 3rd, 2008 at 11:56 am
Nintendo’s strategies haven’t really pleased the hardcore but I agree that it’s a small percentage of people gaming on consoles because I’m one of those people in the percentage that do practically all online play through a PC.
Still, something big like Brawl is a bummer to not have working properly, but with Nintendo not being upfront about these things, who knows the real reason for such a bad experience (and I’m just referring to lag and such issues, friend codes I can deal with.)
The funny thing is that while people bash Nintendo for lack of online, it actually has been a big pusher for online as a resource. First off is its gotten together with a big Japanese telecom to help push broadband to more and more people. Lets not forget Wiiconnect24 and all of the Wii’s integrated services that rely heavily on online (especially one of their big money-makers, the Shopping Channel).
Let’s just hope that as online GAMING moves on it just keeps getting better.
April 3rd, 2008 at 12:01 pm
This actually makes alot of sense. As a person you could categorize as a “hardcore” gamer, I of course despise Friends Codes. It’s such a hassle that even though my friends can play Brawl perfectly fine online, we’re hanging out this weekend to play. We live fairly far away — we’re spending $15 on gas to play Brawl, basically. Just to get around Friend Codes (but obviously, Brawl is more fun in person anyway).
However, I totally understand the reasoning behind this. If Nintendo truly intended this when they began their online strategy, I think one: it shows they’re not just thinking of the future in relation to hardware (the Wii remote) and two: they’re going to really “warm up the waters” as you said in the future.
I wouldn’t be surprised if the next Nintendo system is the next step into online gaming (more user-friendly, simpler, but still somewhat restricted). I honestly don’t expect them to get rid of Friend Codes this generation, but I WOULD be surprised if they used them again for the next console.
Great article, good points, as always.
April 3rd, 2008 at 12:10 pm
While I’m not really into online gaming except for the occasional bout of some word game or trivia thing (and I really hope WiiWare will get some of those, especially online trivia), I have to acknowledge that “19% of an industry comprised of hundreds of millions of people” is still tens of millions of people.
April 3rd, 2008 at 12:11 pm
I agree there is an echochamber blowing things out of proportion. But being in that 19% that play consoles online, it would be cool if my Wii was already up to snuff.
April 3rd, 2008 at 12:12 pm
Good read, as usual.
I just — as in yesterday — began online gaming. Brawl was a little laggy, but overall I had fun. Online is not as big of an issue for me as it is for some gamers — I’m looking at you, people who “boycotted” Metroid Prime 3 for its lack of completely unnecessary online gameplay — but it’s nice as an option. I think some gamers simply take online play too seriously, demanding it in every single game that’s released, which is silly. Why should developers waste time and resources on creating an online component that will be all but abandoned when the next big game comes along? Heck, I even had trouble finding an online Guitar Hero match last night.
I’ll take a great single-player or same-room co-op experience any day of the week over online multiplayer.
April 3rd, 2008 at 12:12 pm
Great article but as usual you can play with numbers to fit your agenda. Keep in mind, I didn’t read the actual report…but I have these questions
What ratio of games sold and played on the PC offer online play vs the number of games sold on consoles that offer online. A better number in my opinion would be, what percentage of Strikers or Brawl owners play online?
Also, is the low number of online players a function of poor online capabilities within the game, network or just general disinterest?
Last, online gaming on a PC is more likely simply because a person probably has a PC with an internet connection. So again, how many people don’t play their console online simply because they can’t get their console online?
April 3rd, 2008 at 12:27 pm
Dustin, I’ll give you major props and points for that comment. It’s a great discussion starter and I hope more people will weigh in with counterpoints and intelligent commentary just like it.
April 3rd, 2008 at 12:29 pm
Great article, I had to check who the author was midway through. Great work. It speaks the truth, but even though I can understand it, I don’t like it.
April 3rd, 2008 at 12:47 pm
[...] Very interesting read over on Infendo this morning about Nintendo’s approach to online gaming and the existing gamer community reaction. [...]
April 3rd, 2008 at 12:47 pm
“I had to check who the author was midway through.”
Gametaku, what, exactly, is that supposed to mean?!
April 3rd, 2008 at 12:48 pm
I agree with a lot of what you’re saying Jack, as usual. However, I do think some of Nintendo’s “problems” are not strictly by design and have shown a bit of a misunderstanding of the potential of the Wii as well as online in general.
That being said, I can honestly say, the majority of complaints about Nintendo online are completely non-existent to the casual and returning gamer. I have quite a few adult friends getting back into gaming with the Wii and they look to me for assistance. They ask about online because they hear people talking about it. One friend in particular really loved when I loaned him a copy of Battallions for Gamecube. When I told him a new version was coming out that would allow us to game together from our respective homes without any additional fees he was ecstatic. When I explained the friend code thing, he didn’t even bat an eyelash. Having not owned an xbox nor used LIVE, he didn’t see friend codes as bothersome….AT….ALL.
He just thought it was awesome that we could play together online for free. To be honest, he was right.
The only people really bothered by Nintendos admittedly underwhelming strategy are the really hardcore gamers. The same gamers most likely to be lurking on gaming blogs (echo chamber). The rest of the population honestly doesn’t know the difference. Thats why Nintendo’s online strategy won’t hurt them.
In a similar vein, I have a co-worker who got his kid a 360 for christmas. He bought himself a copy of Halo 3 and decided to try out the online service. He liked the idea of voice chat amongst people working together. One night of that and he said there’s no way he’s having that in his house. Now he has a Wii.
Personally, I would rather not have friends codes. But voice chat, I don’t really care about. I’m just glad I can game online with friends for free.
April 3rd, 2008 at 12:54 pm
I think the most important aspect you touched on would have to be Nintendo’s target audience, and their ability / desire to play on-line games. Whereas XBox targets mostly the “hardcore” gamers, who are much more likely to want to / be able to play on-line games, Nintendo is redefining the whole concept of who is playing video games, and what they want their games to do. I seriously doubt that most of Nintendos target consumer group has all that much interest of playing on-line games. Sure games like Brawl and Strikers can be fun if you do decide to play an on-line match, but do they really need that option? Or better yet, will they still purchase the game without that option? And the answer is of course, Yes they will.
I totally agree with your conclusion, that the Big N, is biding it’s time, offering just enough on-line play to keep it’s “hardcore” fans watering at the mouth, but with no real intention of jumping headfirst into the on-line waters until they are ready to release their own Nintendofied version of on-line play. It may be sometime down the road with this version of the Wii, or in a couple of years with the Wii2.
Very good article.
April 3rd, 2008 at 1:13 pm
One stat from this report no one seems to be mentioning is:
“The NPD also states that 3% of console owners own at least two of three current-gen systems”
This means that 97% of all console owners have only ONE current gen system.
No wonder there are so many fanboys! Nobody is trying the competition.
This also tells me that the percentage of truly hardcore gamers is absolutely miniscule. My guess is most posters on sites like Kotaku have more than 1 system thus they are a part of that 3% minority.
April 3rd, 2008 at 1:18 pm
I had to do a double take after I read the title as “pimp” instead of “gimp”. It made more sense the second time.
April 3rd, 2008 at 1:24 pm
Nothing bad Jack, I just thought it was Malstrom after a while, but noticed it was missing some of his touches. Like the infinite audience he always creates in his posts.
April 3rd, 2008 at 1:52 pm
I would classify myself as just below a hardcore gamer, however I do very little online gaming that is not exclusively with friends, because I get very little enjoyment from dealing with the types of people that frequent online games (this is obviously a very general statement, and not intended to offend anyone). I derive enjoyment from playing a video game from the experience it creates, and based on these people my experience is completely diminished online. And in that respect I applaud Nintendo for making the experience more enjoyable, by providing a certain level of detachment to the online experience. I’ll use brawl as an example: there really is no difference between brawling online or playing against 3 CPU’s, other than you have intelligent unprogrammed AI that provide the best challenge possible and that are constantly changing, making the game all the more enjoyable. Plus, being limited to only 4 “chat” statements makes it fun to see what people deem as “taunt-worthy” I don’t need to be able to say “wow I beat you pretty bad by doing that combo and following it up by throwing you into that other guy which caused the bob-omb to go off” instead I can just say “OUCH!!!” and watch my character do some animation depicting my superiority for that short time span. I often find myself laughing/smiling just because of the taunts/chat messages.
The downfall to this is that you don’t get to meet new people and develop friendships via an online system like XBox Live, I however, find this to be an okay trade-off that I know I will enjoy the online experience of every Nintendo WiFi game at the expense of a lost acquaintance.
My only complaint with the Nintendo WiFi so far has been that the infrastructure is not completely solid: again using brawl as the example. I’ve had little problems when gaming with friends, a little lag here/there but I honestly think it’s on the connection side of one of the players and not Nintendo itself. However, I’m not fond of sitting and waiting for 2-5 minutes while the match making software does whatever it does (I swear it loops for an indeterminate amount of time before it actually looks for someone). After it finds players it’s great and works the same as when brawling friends.
To end this rant, I’m not fond of friend codes, but I do understand why Nintendo went that route and in the grand scheme of things who cares that you can’t be J0eSm03_69. My complaint is that there is unique codes for each game, why not just use your Wii friend code for all games, less numbers to memorize, etc.
Yeah so those are my thoughts, great article, btw. I do think that a lot of the “problems” are really by design as you said. My only issues are when features don’t work properly.
April 3rd, 2008 at 1:53 pm
@Joshdad,
I would not have purchased Brawl if it didn’t have online play because the chance of me getting to play anyone locally is virtually non-existent.
April 3rd, 2008 at 2:05 pm
Hey Dustin,
I’m sure there are others who feel that way as well, but don’t you agree that by and far the majority of people who bought Brawl still would have bought it, even if it didn’t offer any kind of On-line play?
April 3rd, 2008 at 2:12 pm
Excellent article. That was a very nice read indeed. Kudos, Jack.
April 3rd, 2008 at 2:40 pm
Brawl is a game that’s great offline without people. It becomes spectacular when you get to play with others, and it could have been a true phenomenon if the online abilities were great. How are you supposed to fairly decide to et-up online matches with friends if there isn’t even an offer-counter offer system in place since there can’t be any real communication?
don’t say skype.
April 3rd, 2008 at 2:43 pm
Some very good points, however, with looking at Super Smash Bros. Brawl, I’m still VERY unsatisfied, and not encouraged to go online to play with people. FRIENDS. SHOULD. BE. ABLE. TO. TALK. TO. EACH OTHER. WITHOUT. HINDRANCE.
April 3rd, 2008 at 2:59 pm
My issue is with the lack of “Adult-Only” version Jack mentioned and why that’s so impossible to do.
Nintendo has Parental controls on everything else, why not its online aspect?? Make it so if I’m an adult who wants to voice-chat or play w/o Friend Codes, I can. If I bought this for my kid and didn’t want him/her to play like that, restrict it. Turn off voice-chat or make it so he/she can only play against friends he/she registered. Why have Parental Controls if you aren’t going to use them this way?
I guess it’s the lack of options that annoys me. I get why they are doing it, but it’s not like it’s out of the realm of possibility to employ it.
April 3rd, 2008 at 3:02 pm
First off, great article. I was ecstatic when I saw the title as so few people seem to understand what Nintendo is aiming for with their online service. Glad to see more people catching on! Also, in response to LeLoup’s musings over Nintendo WiFi stability, it is completely dependent on the internet connections of the players. Nintendo does not run servers to host games, as is done in the case of Xbox Live games for instance. Rather, Nintendo contracted Gamespy to set up some master servers that merely help people looking for online matches to be paired up, and then connect them to each other for peer to peer play. This is also how the DS online works. This is why online performance is largely based on the players’ connection speeds. The other big factor is that peer to peer connection performance scales very poorly over long distances. Please note though that a game host server can indeed still be used if Nintendo or a third party so wishes. I’m guessing that is how such games as the Medal of Honor game for Wii supports 32 players.
April 3rd, 2008 at 3:06 pm
Maybe I’m just drinking the kool-aid, but I’m totally content with things as they are.
April 3rd, 2008 at 3:06 pm
Oh and for the person trying to connect to Guitar Hero:
I was online last night as well, and when I tried to connect to non-friends I got the “No Match Found”.
What was interesting though is while I was on this page, I stopped to talk to my girl and all of a sudden it connected. Not sure if this has happened to anyone else, but I was pleasantly surprised by the ability to connect even though initially it found no matches.
April 3rd, 2008 at 3:20 pm
@Joshdad
That’s why I said I’d want to see the numbers. If I were in college I’d buy Brawl in a second even if it lacked online play. I played a lot of Mario Kart 64 back in the day but outside of unlocking some tracks and improving my own times there is little reason to visit the other features of the game, like battle mode, unless I’m playing with friends. Well I’m old now, got a kid and it is a lot more difficult to get friends (most of which have moved or have their own kids) over to play a game.
Melee sold well so it stands to reason that Brawl would also sell well even if it didn’t have an online component because there are enough young people to drive that, people in school or college that can get together and play. I’m generalizing a bit but you get my point.
Today’s world contains a major split, a split of people who were “born and raised” in the information era and those who weren’t. People who were born in the last 20 to 30 years (tops) are driving what the web is today. They *get* the internet. They require the connectivity it provides. My mom is just as happy writing a letter as she is an email, I wouldn’t dream of writing a letter in place of an email but at my age I do understand the importance of a written letter. A person just 10 years younger than me probably doesn’t.
A study like this is going to find this but incorrectly read the results. People who play games on the console are probably the same type that don’t “get” computers. Hell, I “get” computers but I’ve always preferred playing on a console because it’s “put the game in and play” vs “I need a new video card” so naturally console players aren’t going to be huge online gamers.
Anyway, last point is this. I feel a this study pointed out two good numbers. That gaming is on the rise and online gaming is on less of a rise. As I pointed out before, why is the rise of online gaming less? Would online gaming be more prevalent if an effort was made to make it great, rather than mediocre? The people who are want online gaming are used to the PC experience (chat, email, social networking, etc) and expect the console to deliver the same experience. If it doesn’t, then what is the point?
April 3rd, 2008 at 3:39 pm
“As I pointed out before, why is the rise of online gaming less? Would online gaming be more prevalent if an effort was made to make it great, rather than mediocre?”
@Dustin: In the end, I think people want their online experiences to roughly mirror their everyday experiences. This is true regardless of age or familiarity with computers, connectivity or the Internet. They want security, a casual interface and the ability to communicate in some way, shape or form with others.
You say an effort needs to be made to make it great, but that characterization is subjective, not objective. Great to you is exponentially higher than the majority of people out there approaching online gaming.
As Nintendo has done with the foundation, gaming in general, it will soon do with online. With the DS and Wii Nintendo had to start at a point that, I imagine, is also perceived as mind-numbingly dumb to guys like you and me because we’re so in tune with the industry. However, to mom, pop and even young people who were turned off to gaming because it was “dorky” or whatever, there was a breakthrough.
Today with online gaming the same dynamic exists. Xbox Live is kryponite for the 80% of console owners who aren’t online right now. It’s loud, obnoxious and on a system that is arguably unapproachable for the common man/woman.
Nintendo is taking the same approach to online it did with hardware. By warming the water slowly and from the lowest common denominator, it hopes to entice everyone into the pool before it begins to heat things up. Malstrom, as he is wont to do, alludes to this is in his “tiered approach to gaming” articles. 2008 will see us moving to the second tier, at least from Nintendo’s standpoint.
PS — And a good point by the x-man up there in the comments — Nintendo is not the one providing a half ass connection with P2P, it’s the user’s themselves that are creating lag.
April 3rd, 2008 at 4:06 pm
In honesty I had XBL for abut 2 years on the origina xbox, after that I have little to no interest in playing online with console gamers. I say console gamers in particular because I’ve played pc games online pretty regularly for quite some time and have never once encountered the amount of pure unabashed asshatery that I saw on xbl every single time i logged on. Sure there were moments of someone using hacks or what not, but befre long they got ip banned and all was good again. Besides the lack of assholes the people were actually quite mature depending n where you played, using voicecht to actually plan and communicate abut the game, it’s amazing and it makes some games waay more fun, but that was a very rare thing on xbl.
Involved online games can be really great, but since the majority of the console crowd can’t handle themselves like adults then I would much prefer Nintendo’s plan that works pretty much like a bot match.
April 3rd, 2008 at 4:20 pm
If Nintendo is going to DO SOMETHING, they need to do it right. End of Story.
And they are NOT doing it right with so called online strategies.
Frankly, I would prefer NO online for the Wii instead of this half assed poor effort they have. Seriously. The games are GREAT fun as they were.
However, saying that only 20 % of people are playing online, and thus only 20 % effort is “necessary” is total, pathetic, excuse filled , fanBoy, cop-out, garbage. IF the Big N is going to go online, they need to give it 100 % effort. Or simply, don’t go online at all. Stop making ridiculous excuses, based on stats and numbers, for Nintendo’s poor online service.
The fact that ” only a minority ” of people are playing online does NOT mean that it should be a poor experiance. It is NOT an excuse to justify crappy online strategies. You see, IF they are going to make online games and channels at all, then they need to do it right. The fact that the number of players who play online is smaller than the number of players who do not does NOT JUSTIFY a piss assed poor online strategie. And it never will.
Nintendo should only put 20 % effort into online gaming because that is what the latest stats are telling us? NO. If Nintendo is going to put ANY effort into online gaming, AT ALL , it must be 100%.
” Hey! Hey! Its OK for Nintendo to have such weak online gaming…because the STATS say it is only 20 % !” What garbage. IF they are going the online route, they need to do it RIGHT. End of story.
I would rather have NO online from Nintendo than what we have now. And NO, it is NOT ” ok” to have a poor online strategie because only a minority of players use it.
I LOVE Nintendo games as they are, actually. They rock so much.
We don’t “need” online. But if we are getting online , it needs to be done CORRECTLY.
No fanBOY excuses.
Do it right.
Or don’t do it at all.
Stats are for losers.
April 3rd, 2008 at 4:25 pm
Quick question Wii Wii: Can you play against people all across the US in Smash Bros? How about in Mario Strikers Charged? You can? Well, to some, THAT is the definition of great online play.
That it doesn’t fit your mold is irrelevant, seeing as Nintendo has promised nothing but what they’ve offered so far. Congrats, you’re in the 20% who demand a complex, robust online experience. At the moment, you can not and will not get that from Nintendo. Not until, as I outlined in my article, they have brought a majority of the class up to speed.
For once I didn’t justify anything in my rant using crazy fan-man talk. This is also arguably one of the least “fanboyish” articles I’ve posted on Infendo in a while. I used numbers and stats and trends to justify an informed conclusion. You should do the same.
April 3rd, 2008 at 4:28 pm
“Stats are for losers”
Than what are leaderboards and win/loss records? Also, how would you know if something was done correctly without statistics? Critical acclaim is meaningless without sales and with sales comes the need for statistics to see why something succeeded or failed. I’m very sure Call of Duty 4 and Project Gotham Racing 4 sold for different reasons and to different people. there’d be no way to know this without using the tools of knowledge laid out for losers.
April 3rd, 2008 at 5:24 pm
@Jack
Good points, you bring back the reality of what the study did show.
Also, for those following this comment thread, check my thread in the forums (Wii section) regarding lag and just how much of that lag is at the Wii itself if you’re using the wireless connection.
April 3rd, 2008 at 5:51 pm
next step: pay to play?
April 3rd, 2008 at 5:59 pm
“Stats are for losers”
Wow……just wow.
April 3rd, 2008 at 6:09 pm
the way i see it is this,although online gaming is big business and so is gaming consoles,time will make the difference ,the pc has been around a long time now and although big companies started to slowly get into the action of online gaming scene it will never be as big as the pc,eventually the business will grow the more they develop the console,but its still a long way off to compare with pc online gaming
April 3rd, 2008 at 6:53 pm
@ Jack:
About lag: Sure, Nintendo isnt creeating it, but dont you think they could use better servers they could use better servers? Like, say, something similar to what is used in MOH:H2 (lag is minimal there despite all the players and action in screen).
April 3rd, 2008 at 8:49 pm
I absolutely love the QUALITY of Nintendo products and its amazing games. Top notch hardware and software that other developers could only DREAM of creating. It is what makes the Big N so great, so, well unstoppable, really. Most everything they do is with great pride,greater skill, amazing passion and unparallel “magic”.
Thus, I would expect that same effort and “Nintendo quality” for everything that they do. INCLUDING online. And , thus far, the Online strategies are NOT anywhere near the quality Nintendo has achieved with everything else.
Simply put, I would rather play those great Nintendo games on the Wii, WITHOUT the poor online service, its ultra annoying , game specific friend codes , its famously poor connections , lack of voice chat and bloody annoying lag.
Nintendo needs to put that Nintendo quality, Nintendo Magic and Nintendo respect into the online aspect of their business. Or do WITHOUT it ,for the time being.
It is sad to see the best Game developers and console makers in the world’s amazing reputation TARNISHED with such a poor online strategies. When compared to everything ELSE that Nintendo has worked on , online looks pale by comparison. And trying to “justify” this poor service by saying how only 20 % of games really care, is rubbish. IF Nintendo is doing something AT ALL, they need to do it with the same passion, quality and respect that all OTHER products have been made with.
Or just don’t do it. Let the other consoles shine online and play catch up in a few years with Wii-3d.. I mean…Wii 2. =)
Everything about Nintendo is innovation.
Everything about Nintendo is quality.
Everything about Nintendo is reputation.
Nintendo is, well, Magical.
Thus, IF Nintendo has decided to go the route of Online, it must continue its famous quality, continue its magic, its innovation. Or just don’t do it until they learn how.
It does not matter how many people are playing online.It does not matter how many people are using Nintendo’s PRODUCT. The fact is, it is still a Nintendo PRODUCT. Who CARES if 10, 5, 50, or 80 % of people are playing online. All previous Nintendo products are magical and of great quality. And thus, online needs to be of the famous Nintendo QUALITY that hey have set for THEMSELVES over the decades.
And it is not.
April 3rd, 2008 at 9:08 pm
Is LAG part of their online strategy as well?
April 3rd, 2008 at 9:24 pm
“An industry with 20% playing online demands a 20% effort.”
I like the quote. Great article.
April 3rd, 2008 at 9:31 pm
I’m 100% with Wii Wii on this.
But then, you already knew that.
The fact is that Jack is right when he says that most non-hardcore gamers don’t care about online. Not implementing online-play in a game like Rock Band probably won’t impact the sales one bit.
But it’s a question of quality. If you *ARE* in that 20%, and I’d argue that everyone who regularly reads a video game blog (infendo.com is) then you deserve a product you can be proud of.
There will come a day when Nintendo’s sales will be impacted by it’s lack of understanding in the online arena. On that day, they will finally make an effort. Until then, we have to put up with it.
More and more these days, I can see that Nintendo is in the business of making money, not making great video games, and that makes me sad even if it has been obvious all along.
April 3rd, 2008 at 9:33 pm
And by the way, the 20 % participation = 20 % effort breaks down when you think about it in terms of “x number of people are going to buy a game, so we should put x percentage into it.”
If Nintendo expects 75% of their Wii owners to buy Brawl, should they put 75% effort in? No.
If Nintendo expects 40% of their Wii owners to buy Mario Strikers, should they put 40% effort in? Of course not.
Wii Wii is right - either do it right, or wait till it’s going to matter in the bank account to do it at all.
April 3rd, 2008 at 9:47 pm
Unless Jack is right, and that it is actually Nintendos strategy to “not do it right” in order to set themselves up for a “new” and “shinier” internet service, that when presented, will look all the better because of what they have now.
Does on-line work for the Wii? yes it does. Is it as good as other consoles? No it doesn’t. But it DOES work, so you can’t claim that Nintendo isn’t giving you a working On-line system. Is Nintendo going to be hurt financially by the on-line that it offers? Obviously right now the answer to that question is a whopping NO. Will Nintendo be hurt in the near future by the on-line it offers? According to the figures in the article, Probably not in the least bit? Is there a rush for Nintendo to “go all out” then with its on-line right now? Not really. Will Nintendo have something further down the road that will not only make “hard-core” gamers happy, but allow even the casual gamers on-line happy? We can’t answer that question yet, but knowing Nintendo they are going to work some magic and break all the know on-line rules, and give us something that nobody is expecting, but will be very, very well received (especially because of what they now offer).
I understand Wii-Wii’s and Andrew’s objections, but if Jack is right in his article, then what Nintendo is doing is setting themselves up for something better, but until then, “hardcore” gamers will have to settle for a simple on-line experience, that thought it works, is not as good as other consoles.
April 3rd, 2008 at 9:48 pm
“Hardcore” gamers don’t have to “settle” for anything other than going somewhere else for their gaming, something that until this generation, wasn’t really necessary.
April 3rd, 2008 at 9:58 pm
If you’re a hardcore gamer, and you want to play a wii game, guess what you’re “settling” for what they offer. If you don’t like it, I’m sure there is somebody out there who would love to buy your Wii from you, so they too can “settle” for what Nintendo is offering. You can gripe, whine, complain all you want, but if the Big N has a plan, you’re voice won’t mean very much.
Also, until THIS generation, you couldn’t do what Nintendo is allowing you to do, so you WILL settle, or you WON’T enjoy this new technology - your choice.
April 3rd, 2008 at 10:03 pm
Can’t argue with that. I guess I’ll keep settling for what Nintendo puts out. But as my Wii gets dustier and dustier in the long months between relevant Wii releases, I’ll be happily playing video games on my Xbox.
April 3rd, 2008 at 10:37 pm
I have to say, I don’t think Wii Wii could be more wrong.
“Simply put, I would rather play those great Nintendo games on the Wii, WITHOUT the poor online service,”
Um, ok, then do. Did someone take away your right to play a game without taking it online?
And as long as we’re on the subject of wrongness…
“More and more these days, I can see that Nintendo is in the business of making money, not making great video games,”
This is laughable. Nintendo makes money BECAUSE they make great video games. To separate the two makes no sense. Games like Galaxy, MP3, Paper Mario, Wii Sports, Twilight Princess, are some of the greatest of this generation, typical of Nintendo. I just happens that this time they are also on the best selling hardware.
April 3rd, 2008 at 11:03 pm
Used cisco, well put as usual. I’ll have to scroll up later to see who said that last quote, but regardless it makes no sense whatsoever. The truth of the matter is Nintendo is making great games AND lots of money! And they’re doing it with all types of people too.
“More and more these days” third party developers are doing that with Nintendo hardware too, I’ll add.
April 4th, 2008 at 5:03 am
While any speculation on Nintendo’s future plans are kinda silly (we can’t even begin to imagine what they’re thinking no matter how much some conjecture may make a lot of sense), Jack is basically right about what they *need* to do to make both online and the Wii successful. Xbox Live on a system designed primarily to support a new un-initiated audience would be a hideous mistake. Friend codes do make a great deal of sense even, people may not be particularly used to things like online handles, instant message like interfaces, and all sort of other stuff that many of us take for granted, but there are very few people who don’t understand the concept of phone numbers.
Not binding the code to the Wii and instead having it be game specific *was* a big mistake though in my opinion. The sort of mistake that makes me wonder if there’s an inherent technical problem with doing it the other way. I’m betting that the games are actually incapable of communicating with the parts of the Wii OS that actually store that sort of data, making it impossible for the games to figure out what the Wii’s system id is. If that is true, I have to wonder if there’s a *reason* why the games don’t have access to that data, or if it was simply an oversight. Sadly, short of having access to a Wii DevKit it’s unlikely I’ll get an answer to that.
On the other hand, I am kind of curious, and maybe someone can possibly figure this one out… how exactly does the game go about generating the initial friend code to begin with? Is it based on the DVD being inserted? In which case I could take my copy of Brawl and move it to a different Wii and maintain the same friend code. Or is it something generated in the save game at random? In which case I’d get a different save code if I deleted my Brawl data. Is it something that’s generated using a combination of a system id key and the cd? In which case deleting my Brawl data would always result in the same friend code, but using the disc on another wii would result in a new code. Since I only have 1 copy of Brawl and 1 Wii, I can’t really test that out, but I’m curious as to how it’s generated.
April 4th, 2008 at 5:58 am
Thats some optimsim right there. I cant see Nintendo preparing to unleash some new Revolution in online gaming.
Obvioulsy there will always be lag, but if I could play through an online game that didnt have so much lag then I’d be pleased.
The funny thing is, the one game I have played that has been lag free was Medal of Honor Heroes 2, which EA hosted themselves. Whether thats a server thing, or just a bit of luck I’ve had when playing that game online I’ll never know.
April 4th, 2008 at 8:35 am
@eolirin,
“I’m betting that the games are actually incapable of communicating with the parts of the Wii OS that actually store that sort of data, making it impossible for the games to figure out what the Wii’s system id is. If that is true…..”
It’s not true. MP3 uses your main system code to communicate with others that have MP3. I wish all games did this. As soon as you get MP3, you can go in and see who in your main system friend list also has the game and you can send them stuff back and forth. It’s limited but cool and proves the concept.
Also, with regard to friend codes, I think they are partially based on your system and your disc, but also somehow randomly generated. If you erase your profile and save data, you’ll get a new friend code everytime in most games I believe.
April 4th, 2008 at 10:40 am
I think Jack’s initial comment that Nintendo is only putting a 20% effort into their online is rubbish.
They are putting 100% behind it. No question. Just because their “strategy” differes from the vocal minority, doesn’t mean they are putting less effort in. Effort is subjective. They could be trying really hard to build a ground work where the new expanded audience will be inticed to join in online gaming, while still allowing the existing audience to enjoy it (to a somewhat lesser extent) for the time being.
I think they are putting 100% behind, let’s call it Phase I, of their online strategy. Phase II (whenever it comes) will push a little bit more into the “warmer water” so to speak as Jack put it. Phase II will most likely contain some of the items listed by the existing audience, as they know what a “real” 100% effort is. But the difference is exactly that, audience.
XBL is catering to a different audience. A majority of XBL users are probably the existing audience. MS most likely doesn’t care to “protect” its users through friend codes and lack of voice-chat because the audience demands it.
While on the other hand, Nintendo is catering to the expanded audience. This is why the existing audience is feeling a little neglected. However, taking this as fact, Nintendo wants to bring them in slowly, protecting them against what they know can be out there.
You act like Nintendo is new to this gaming business. While they have never had a service as robust as XBL, that doesn’t mean they don’t understand what it can do. It is the exact reason I believe Nintendo is putting 100% into protecting its audience from the known “bad things” out there.
At least until they are ready.
But of course, this could have been avoided if they would have just make Parental Controls to block it, and allow those who want to use a more XBL style to do it.
April 4th, 2008 at 10:57 am
I just realized something. Since Nintendo’s entire strategy, first with the DS and now with the Wii, centers around making people who comment on game blogs totally irrelevant to the gaming market, discussion of our own preferences is really kind of moot. We’re no longer the “influential early adopters” we used to be, no matter how much we whinge about gimped online, weird controls and reduced blood spatter.
Not that I think anyone will stop because of that.
April 4th, 2008 at 11:25 am
“And by the way, the 20 % participation = 20 % effort breaks down when you think about it in terms of “x number of people are going to buy a game, so we should put x percentage into it.”
If Nintendo expects 75% of their Wii owners to buy Brawl, should they put 75% effort in? No.
If Nintendo expects 40% of their Wii owners to buy Mario Strikers, should they put 40% effort in? Of course not.
Wii Wii is right - either do it right, or wait till it’s going to matter in the bank account to do it at all.”
This is the best post in this discussion.
April 4th, 2008 at 11:34 am
@ResidentialEvil
So according to you and Wii-Wii, since Wii hasn’t put 100% effort in offering “hardcore” games, they shouldn’t offer ANY hardcore games at all? Since the Wii hasn’t put 100% effort into offering FPS games, they shouldn’t offer ANY FPS shooter games at all?
After all, unless the Wii is going to “do it right”, they shouldn’t even bother doing it at all. They should wait until they have the “hardcore” thing down 100% until they offer any games like that? Is that what you’re saying?
Trying to use examples like Brawl doesn’t work, because what Jack is talking about is a whole genre (on-line games), not just an individual game. For example, I think the Big N put 100% effort into producing MP3, but not 100% into the whole FPS shooting genre.
April 4th, 2008 at 12:57 pm
Many of you say they should have simply offered xbox live like functionality locked behind parental controls, yet it is those very same parents that the nintendo wifi service has been designed for. We still live in a time where kids are far more comfortable with online technology than their parents are a majority of the time, and don’t forget the technical prowess of most grandparents out there. When the purpose of your design is to be simple then you do just that and keep it simple. What you guys are really asking for is an advanced setup behind a “hardcore” lock! There is an easy solution to all this as well. Just like Nintendo you should keep it simple, look at the online experience, decide whether you enjoy using it or not, and simply keep playing or stop using it based on the findings of your analysis.
April 4th, 2008 at 1:01 pm
I nominate Raindog469s comment for comment of the week. Of all the comments on this story, his is likely the most relevant.
April 4th, 2008 at 1:13 pm
It’s funny how online play is such a breaking point for the gamers that call them selves hardcore. I’m just glad they are trying but all games should stand up on their own offline since I will still be playing most of my game 10 years from now. I mean take halo 1 or 2 and ask your self how many people still play those games? As soon as every one moves on the game looses all value because the off line play sucks. That is not the case with brawl.This is where the 20% thing pops up again, did they really put 20% effort into this game are did they simply concentrate on making the offline game more polished? This could be the case but if you are not experienced with making these games then can you really put forth a 100% effort with no flaws? They simply have a problem with connection issues and the same thing still happens on the best online games yet not as much. Now if you have problems with friend codes then I understand but if you really are hardcore then you find ways around such problems.
I want to look at another part of the problem which may actually be the fact that the Wireless connection is mostly the problem. I’ll have to play with it some more yet once you connect a lan line it works fine. Could Brawl simply be sending too much data or does the game lack any support of input prediction? It could be incompatibility to function at 100% wireless speeds on certain routers.
The problem with this subject is we really don’t know enough about this topic and it true technical problems to be mad at nintendo other than it doesn’t work great all the time. The all or nothing approach got the same reaction from online gamers. It’s good to see them trying this because it shows that the critic really where wrong about nintendo. Like any company they want to put in must have features and any thing that keeps gamers gaming yet we all know that they are not MS and they will try every thing to keep cost down.
April 4th, 2008 at 1:52 pm
Too good to be true. A comic that I think caps off this thread pretty nicely
http://xkcd.com/406/
April 4th, 2008 at 2:02 pm
I don’t know how apropos it is to this topic, but it’s certainly perfect for most of the drivel-laden blog comments out there. I will be linking to this comic in comment sections surely before the day is done! But before that, I’m gonna go hit up some free online on my Wii!
April 4th, 2008 at 3:45 pm
@ xaviorq8
I get the fact that most kids are smarter than their parents. I’m one of that generation who is setting up things for my parents who may be behind the times.
However your comment seems a little off. If the “lack of necessary features” was put in place for parents/grandparents, than fine. Ship the system with these settings as a default. Hell, keep them under a Parental lock just to make sure they cover their bases. Saying to all the over-protective parents: “Hey, you want to protect your kid from these things, educate yourselves and control the content they can reach, and here’s how…”
Nintendo in essence is acting as our parents, telling us what we can and can’t do online. They are setting the boundaries. If you set the system default to act as their system does now, how many of the parents/grandparents out their will go in and change those settings. Probably none, at least until they are ready. That way the new expanded audience is covered/protected. They aren’t exposed to all this crap out there, see XBL.
However, if I am an educated adult, who wants to experience those features, it should be my choice to do so. My point isn’t that Nintendo can’t do these things, rather Nintendo is DOING THIS ON PURPOSE. And frankly I think there could have been the “best of both worlds” situation by simply doing what I outline above.
April 4th, 2008 at 4:09 pm
[...] Doch nun wird die Argumentationsführung auf eine andere Seite verlagert. Unsere Kollegen von infendo.com fragen sich, ob sich diese restriktive Taktik seitens der Japaner zu Ladenschluss nicht auszahlen [...]
April 4th, 2008 at 4:16 pm
“However, if I am an educated adult, who wants to experience those features, it should be my choice to do so.”
It is, it’s called xbox LIVE and it requires a monthly subscription fee whether you use those features or not.
People just don’t get it. Advanced features like a unified friends list, games interfacing with an online infrastructure of stats and invites, voice chat, all costs money to R&D, implement and support, most likely necessitating a subscription fee. Nintendo is gambling that most of their users don’t want those features and wouldn’t use them. They are gambling that what most of their customers want is the option to play online for free and little else. MS, on the other hand, has decided to attach online gaming to the advanced features without giving use the choice. That model means you get cool advanced features, BUT you are essentially paying for things like voice chat and a unified friends list even if all you want to do is hop online for a game or two.
It’s two different models based on different consumer demographics.
April 4th, 2008 at 4:59 pm
Exactly my point. So why not allow WII OWNERS the option? That’s all my point is. I already stated I understand that Nintendo is catering to a different audience. I know that, and understand it.
I guess the part I overlooked was the cost Nintendo would acquire with all the “other” features. I feel a little spoiled that I get what I do get from Nintendo for free and don’t understand why they can’t offer the other stuff for free as well. But obviously this comes at a cost.
Point. Set. Match. Good game used cisco…you’ve won this round.
April 4th, 2008 at 5:46 pm
“Exactly my point. So why not allow WII OWNERS the option?”
Because they don’t want to charge. They don’t want to spend the money and then have to try to get it back in fees. It’s not complicated.
Like I said, they are gambling that most of their customers won’t miss. I think they are right. Keep in mind, whatever advanced features you want, are likely different than what other advanced users may want. They’ve chosen to eliminate that issue by only offering barebones services, at no charge. It’s not an obvious winner of a strategy, but they seem to be willing to give it some time.
April 4th, 2008 at 5:50 pm
And sorry if it seemed like I was trying to win something. I’m just trying to get in Nintendo’s head on this. I’ve honestly had several initial disappointments in reading stuff about choices NIntendo has made (No HD graphics, weak online, the name “wii”), but in the end, once I use the hardware and play the games, and see the looks on friends and families faces as they share in my hobby, it starts to come into focus.
April 5th, 2008 at 8:18 pm
“Because they don’t want to charge. They don’t want to spend the money and then have to try to get it back in fees. It’s not complicated.”
Cough-Cough … PAY & PLAY online
Cough-cough… Coming SOON…
Good article here, and good discussion.
But, really, it is sad to see such a poor effort from the Big n ,when all its OTHER efforts are so wonderful, so innovaive and so fun.
Get it right or just dont do it yet.
April 6th, 2008 at 4:22 am
For those of us who grew up playing Nintendo, which I suppose is most of us, we dreamed of playing in a massive universe to explore and have shared experiences. I remember distinctly the day I wrote to GameInformer lining out exactly why I was passionate about online play and how I believed it would revolutionize gaming as we know it. I believe the problem is, when we all signed on to play each other, the same things happened that always happen when strangers with egos mingle. Cursing from the crude, perversion from the pervert, and everything else that shouldnt be in the same room with 12 year olds. (Which, as we all know, is the reason we have friend codes.)
My point? Is the same as this article… Get used to it. Until you can be censored perfectly in our new e-universe, you will be inputing 85 digit friend codes into your new Animal Crossing Wii buddy list.
April 7th, 2008 at 10:37 am
“Cough-Cough … PAY & PLAY online
Cough-cough… Coming SOON…”
My point exactly. Offer advanced online features SEPARATE from basic online play. That way, those who want them can pay for them without punishing us who just want to hop online for a game now and then.
Thanks for backing me up wii wii, I couldn’t have said it better myself.
April 7th, 2008 at 12:35 pm
I just don’t get the insistence on having Nintendo games with Microsoft style online. Microsoft already has Live. It’s a wonderful service if that’s what you want.
I don’t insist that Burger King have steak and I don’t insist that Logans get me a burger and fries in under 5 minutes and 5 dollars. Would it be great if Burger King had a tasty menu more like Logans? Sure. Would it be great if Logans had my food ready before I was even done ordering? Definately. But I know why they aren’t eachother and I’m ok with that. I suppose that’s where those choose 2 of 3 cheap/good/fast signs are conveying.
April 7th, 2008 at 1:59 pm
All I need is for you guys to include me in your Smash Bros Brawl friends list… THEN I can share my opinion on online gaming on Wii!
April 7th, 2008 at 2:10 pm
@jadenguy,
No, Burger King sucks and I absolutely refuse to eat there if they don’t serve steaks. Burger King is just a gimped restaurant for the kiddies and grandmas! Burger King is just coasting because of all the fanboys who buy their rehashed burgers and ported french fries and keep coming back. REAL EATERS go to Logans!
You know what? It sounds just as stupid when you’re talking about food as it does when all the haters bash the Wii because it doesn’t do exactly what they want.