Atari Founder Warns Nintendo May be on The Way Out

[ron1n]

That's all? Let them just stop development on everything else and make an MMO from a single player franchise. Tell me, how often does it work out when publishers turn a single player franchise into an MMO?

Because obviously 'stop development on everything else' was what I was implying.

And you're absolutely right. How could they ever possibly hope to convert the complex and nuanced gameplay of collecting cute critters and battling with them onto a larger scale. Don't know what I was thinking. People would definitely not want anything to do with such a game least it destroy the continuation of such original and inspired single player hand-held releases.

 

[WeepingAngels]

Wii U Pokemon MMO. That is all.

Some people say that this would do well. I'm skeptical. I'm a decent MMO fan; I've played[footnote]At least tried them. I've only put 200+ hours into WoW, Rift, SW:ToR, GW2 and EvE[/footnote] moooost of the big ones. I also enjoy Pokemon; myself and my brother probably have ~10 pokemon games between us. I still wouldn't play a Pokemon MMO. So I dunno.

Edited the footnote

Making single player franchises into MMO's rarely works out well. I say rarely to cover my ass but I don't actually know of any that have worked out well. For example, Skyrim sold millions and millions of copies and Oblivion was no slouch either, I'll bet most of those Elder Scrolls fans couldn't care less about the MMO. How many people wanted a third KOTOR game instead of an MMO?

People love Pokemon for what it is.

 

[WeepingAngels]

That's all? Let them just stop development on everything else and make an MMO from a single player franchise. Tell me, how often does it work out when publishers turn a single player franchise into an MMO?

Because obviously 'stop development on everything else' was what I was implying.

And you're absolutely right. How could they ever possibly hope to convert the complex and nuanced gameplay of collecting cute critters and battling with them onto a larger scale. Don't know what I was thinking. People would definitely not want anything to do with such a game least it destroy the continuation of such original and inspired single player hand-held releases.

How about you drop the sarcasm and tell me how many single player franchises turned MMO turned out well? That is what I originally asked.

 

[gmaverick019_v1legacy]

Wii U Pokemon MMO. That is all.

Some people say that this would do well. I'm skeptical. I'm a decent MMO fan; I've played[footnote]At least tried them. I've only put 200+ hours into WoW, Rift, SW:ToR, GW2 and EvE[/footnote] moooost of the big ones. I also enjoy Pokemon; myself and my brother probably have ~10 pokemon games between us. I still wouldn't play a Pokemon MMO. So I dunno.

Edited the footnote

Making single player franchises into MMO's rarely works out well. I say rarely to cover my ass but I don't actually know of any that have worked out well. For example, Skyrim sold millions and millions of copies and Oblivion was no slouch either, I'll bet most of those Elder Scrolls fans couldn't care less about the MMO. How many people wanted a third KOTOR game instead of an MMO?

People love Pokemon for what it is.

the only thing is people play pokemon competitively all the damn timeeeee, especially online (meta-game to be exact)

so we know there is technically already a "market" or such that does the online multiplayer of it, just not in a integrated setting.

personally i've been dying for a 3D pokemon on console, or an action based pokemon game (a is roll/dodge depending on your speed of the pokemon, the triggers all are different moves the pokemon can do and x and y can be passive abilities/etc...i just think pokemon can work amazingly in an action setting like they do on the cartoons, that or i just am fucking dying for a 3D pokemon regardless of changes in gameplay, you can't tell me that shit wouldn't sell like hotcakes parents wallets couldn't orgasm with money coming out fast enough for kids.

 

[WeepingAngels]

Wii U Pokemon MMO. That is all.

Some people say that this would do well. I'm skeptical. I'm a decent MMO fan; I've played[footnote]At least tried them. I've only put 200+ hours into WoW, Rift, SW:ToR, GW2 and EvE[/footnote] moooost of the big ones. I also enjoy Pokemon; myself and my brother probably have ~10 pokemon games between us. I still wouldn't play a Pokemon MMO. So I dunno.

Edited the footnote

Making single player franchises into MMO's rarely works out well. I say rarely to cover my ass but I don't actually know of any that have worked out well. For example, Skyrim sold millions and millions of copies and Oblivion was no slouch either, I'll bet most of those Elder Scrolls fans couldn't care less about the MMO. How many people wanted a third KOTOR game instead of an MMO?

People love Pokemon for what it is.

the only thing is people play pokemon competitively all the damn timeeeee, especially online (meta-game to be exact)

so we know there is technically already a "market" or such that does the online multiplayer of it, just not in a integrated setting.

personally i've been dying for a 3D pokemon on console, or an action based pokemon game (a is roll/dodge depending on your speed of the pokemon, the triggers all are different moves the pokemon can do and x and y can be passive abilities/etc...i just think pokemon can work amazingly in an action setting like they do on the cartoons, that or i just am fucking dying for a 3D pokemon regardless of changes in gameplay, you can't tell me that shit wouldn't sell like hotcakes parents wallets couldn't orgasm with money coming out fast enough for kids.

Just because people play online doesn't mean they want an MMO. I do have an example.

People play Age of Empires and Age of Mythology online all the time so Microsoft used your logic and created an Age of Empires MMO, it failed.

 

[gmaverick019_v1legacy]

Wii U Pokemon MMO. That is all.

Some people say that this would do well. I'm skeptical. I'm a decent MMO fan; I've played[footnote]At least tried them. I've only put 200+ hours into WoW, Rift, SW:ToR, GW2 and EvE[/footnote] moooost of the big ones. I also enjoy Pokemon; myself and my brother probably have ~10 pokemon games between us. I still wouldn't play a Pokemon MMO. So I dunno.

Edited the footnote

Making single player franchises into MMO's rarely works out well. I say rarely to cover my ass but I don't actually know of any that have worked out well. For example, Skyrim sold millions and millions of copies and Oblivion was no slouch either, I'll bet most of those Elder Scrolls fans couldn't care less about the MMO. How many people wanted a third KOTOR game instead of an MMO?

People love Pokemon for what it is.

the only thing is people play pokemon competitively all the damn timeeeee, especially online (meta-game to be exact)

so we know there is technically already a "market" or such that does the online multiplayer of it, just not in a integrated setting.

personally i've been dying for a 3D pokemon on console, or an action based pokemon game (a is roll/dodge depending on your speed of the pokemon, the triggers all are different moves the pokemon can do and x and y can be passive abilities/etc...i just think pokemon can work amazingly in an action setting like they do on the cartoons, that or i just am fucking dying for a 3D pokemon regardless of changes in gameplay, you can't tell me that shit wouldn't sell like hotcakes parents wallets couldn't orgasm with money coming out fast enough for kids.

Just because people play online doesn't mean they want an MMO. I do have an example.

People play Age of Empires and Age of Mythology online all the time so Microsoft used your logic and created an Age of Empires MMO, it failed.

oh i know, believe me i'm not an mmo person, complete opposite to be certain, i was just stating that pokemon is a bit different compared to skyrim or kotor, those were EXTREME single player based games in every sense of the word, while pokemon has always had the concept of trading and battling with friends via cable or online, and all you have to do is check out a few pokemon threads to see how insanely similar/crazy the meta-gamers are compared to some mmo'ers. (not to mention how many times nintendo has had to shut down pokemon mmo's that were made by fans, they'd gain insane popularity and nintendo would QQ about it hard)


also, age of empires mmo was awful, just an awful game that destroyed a great franchise..i still remember my playthroughs of II and III being glorious.

 

[Stealth]

""I don't think handheld game-only devices make sense anymore. Not when you have an iPod or an Android microtablet."

I dont think those devices make sense for gaming. And the fact that 3ds has been outselling everything for 2 years. Sort of proves that huh?

Then again, this is the man that said lynx would outsell gameboy.



The bottom line is hes a bitter old man who has no relevance in the game industry, drove atari into the dirt, hated Nintendo since day one and is jealous

 

[WeepingAngels]

Wii U Pokemon MMO. That is all.

Some people say that this would do well. I'm skeptical. I'm a decent MMO fan; I've played[footnote]At least tried them. I've only put 200+ hours into WoW, Rift, SW:ToR, GW2 and EvE[/footnote] moooost of the big ones. I also enjoy Pokemon; myself and my brother probably have ~10 pokemon games between us. I still wouldn't play a Pokemon MMO. So I dunno.

Edited the footnote

Making single player franchises into MMO's rarely works out well. I say rarely to cover my ass but I don't actually know of any that have worked out well. For example, Skyrim sold millions and millions of copies and Oblivion was no slouch either, I'll bet most of those Elder Scrolls fans couldn't care less about the MMO. How many people wanted a third KOTOR game instead of an MMO?

People love Pokemon for what it is.

the only thing is people play pokemon competitively all the damn timeeeee, especially online (meta-game to be exact)

so we know there is technically already a "market" or such that does the online multiplayer of it, just not in a integrated setting.

personally i've been dying for a 3D pokemon on console, or an action based pokemon game (a is roll/dodge depending on your speed of the pokemon, the triggers all are different moves the pokemon can do and x and y can be passive abilities/etc...i just think pokemon can work amazingly in an action setting like they do on the cartoons, that or i just am fucking dying for a 3D pokemon regardless of changes in gameplay, you can't tell me that shit wouldn't sell like hotcakes parents wallets couldn't orgasm with money coming out fast enough for kids.

Just because people play online doesn't mean they want an MMO. I do have an example.

People play Age of Empires and Age of Mythology online all the time so Microsoft used your logic and created an Age of Empires MMO, it failed.

oh i know, believe me i'm not an mmo person, complete opposite to be certain, i was just stating that pokemon is a bit different compared to skyrim or kotor, those were EXTREME single player based games in every sense of the word, while pokemon has always had the concept of trading and battling with friends via cable or online, and all you have to do is check out a few pokemon threads to see how insanely similar/crazy the meta-gamers are compared to some mmo'ers. (not to mention how many times nintendo has had to shut down pokemon mmo's that were made by fans, they'd gain insane popularity and nintendo would QQ about it hard)


also, age of empires mmo was awful, just an awful game that destroyed a great franchise..i still remember my playthroughs of II and III being glorious.

Age of Empires Online was awful because they took the franchise from being an RTS franchise to a quest based MMO. Those changes were made because it was an MMO and at first it didn't even contain Skirmish mode.

I imagine a Pokemon MMO would make the same mistakes. After all, if they kept the same gameplay with the optional online matches, then it would be no different than a standard Pokemon game.

 

[Stealth20k]

He is an out of touch old man who makes no sense

 

[WeepingAngels]

""I don't think handheld game-only devices make sense anymore. Not when you have an iPod or an Android microtablet."

I dont think those devices make sense for gaming. And the fact that 3ds has been outselling everything for 2 years. Sort of proves that huh?

I love my 3DS and my Vita but I never see any out in the wild. I see plenty of people playing games on their tablets. So I would say that they must make sense for gaming...

I guess I need to get one sooner or later.

 

[gmaverick019_v1legacy]

Wii U Pokemon MMO. That is all.

Some people say that this would do well. I'm skeptical. I'm a decent MMO fan; I've played[footnote]At least tried them. I've only put 200+ hours into WoW, Rift, SW:ToR, GW2 and EvE[/footnote] moooost of the big ones. I also enjoy Pokemon; myself and my brother probably have ~10 pokemon games between us. I still wouldn't play a Pokemon MMO. So I dunno.

Edited the footnote

Making single player franchises into MMO's rarely works out well. I say rarely to cover my ass but I don't actually know of any that have worked out well. For example, Skyrim sold millions and millions of copies and Oblivion was no slouch either, I'll bet most of those Elder Scrolls fans couldn't care less about the MMO. How many people wanted a third KOTOR game instead of an MMO?

People love Pokemon for what it is.

the only thing is people play pokemon competitively all the damn timeeeee, especially online (meta-game to be exact)

so we know there is technically already a "market" or such that does the online multiplayer of it, just not in a integrated setting.

personally i've been dying for a 3D pokemon on console, or an action based pokemon game (a is roll/dodge depending on your speed of the pokemon, the triggers all are different moves the pokemon can do and x and y can be passive abilities/etc...i just think pokemon can work amazingly in an action setting like they do on the cartoons, that or i just am fucking dying for a 3D pokemon regardless of changes in gameplay, you can't tell me that shit wouldn't sell like hotcakes parents wallets couldn't orgasm with money coming out fast enough for kids.

Just because people play online doesn't mean they want an MMO. I do have an example.

People play Age of Empires and Age of Mythology online all the time so Microsoft used your logic and created an Age of Empires MMO, it failed.

oh i know, believe me i'm not an mmo person, complete opposite to be certain, i was just stating that pokemon is a bit different compared to skyrim or kotor, those were EXTREME single player based games in every sense of the word, while pokemon has always had the concept of trading and battling with friends via cable or online, and all you have to do is check out a few pokemon threads to see how insanely similar/crazy the meta-gamers are compared to some mmo'ers. (not to mention how many times nintendo has had to shut down pokemon mmo's that were made by fans, they'd gain insane popularity and nintendo would QQ about it hard)


also, age of empires mmo was awful, just an awful game that destroyed a great franchise..i still remember my playthroughs of II and III being glorious.

Age of Empires Online was awful because they took the franchise from being an RTS franchise to a quest based MMO. Those changes were made because it was an MMO and at first it didn't even contain Skirmish mode.

I imagine a Pokemon MMO would make the same mistakes. After all, if they kept the same gameplay with the optional online matches, then it would be no different than a standard Pokemon game.

yeah it was definitely a bad combination, and they did it in a horribly lacking way.

as i mentioned, this has been tried plenty of times before, and nintendo force chokes every dev that tries to do it, but it has been proven to work and plenty of people were interested in it/playing them when they were out for their brief time.

here is a youtube video to show one of the many off:


listen, i don't want to play a pokemon mmo, and it is quite clear that you don't want one either, but there is evidence of it working before gamefreak even touches the damn games, so quite clearly there is a market for it.

 

[Saltyk]

Not gonna touch this one. I've never really been a Nintendo person so, I never really got into their games or systems. And I've got no real perspective on what makes them popular. Beyond observation and assumption, that is.

I don't pretend to know if Nintendo will go under or not, but I'm not holding my breath. Would like to see a Zelda title on other platforms, though. Just saiyan.

 

[WeepingAngels]

Wii U Pokemon MMO. That is all.

Some people say that this would do well. I'm skeptical. I'm a decent MMO fan; I've played[footnote]At least tried them. I've only put 200+ hours into WoW, Rift, SW:ToR, GW2 and EvE[/footnote] moooost of the big ones. I also enjoy Pokemon; myself and my brother probably have ~10 pokemon games between us. I still wouldn't play a Pokemon MMO. So I dunno.

Edited the footnote

Making single player franchises into MMO's rarely works out well. I say rarely to cover my ass but I don't actually know of any that have worked out well. For example, Skyrim sold millions and millions of copies and Oblivion was no slouch either, I'll bet most of those Elder Scrolls fans couldn't care less about the MMO. How many people wanted a third KOTOR game instead of an MMO?

People love Pokemon for what it is.

the only thing is people play pokemon competitively all the damn timeeeee, especially online (meta-game to be exact)

so we know there is technically already a "market" or such that does the online multiplayer of it, just not in a integrated setting.

personally i've been dying for a 3D pokemon on console, or an action based pokemon game (a is roll/dodge depending on your speed of the pokemon, the triggers all are different moves the pokemon can do and x and y can be passive abilities/etc...i just think pokemon can work amazingly in an action setting like they do on the cartoons, that or i just am fucking dying for a 3D pokemon regardless of changes in gameplay, you can't tell me that shit wouldn't sell like hotcakes parents wallets couldn't orgasm with money coming out fast enough for kids.

Just because people play online doesn't mean they want an MMO. I do have an example.

People play Age of Empires and Age of Mythology online all the time so Microsoft used your logic and created an Age of Empires MMO, it failed.

oh i know, believe me i'm not an mmo person, complete opposite to be certain, i was just stating that pokemon is a bit different compared to skyrim or kotor, those were EXTREME single player based games in every sense of the word, while pokemon has always had the concept of trading and battling with friends via cable or online, and all you have to do is check out a few pokemon threads to see how insanely similar/crazy the meta-gamers are compared to some mmo'ers. (not to mention how many times nintendo has had to shut down pokemon mmo's that were made by fans, they'd gain insane popularity and nintendo would QQ about it hard)


also, age of empires mmo was awful, just an awful game that destroyed a great franchise..i still remember my playthroughs of II and III being glorious.

Age of Empires Online was awful because they took the franchise from being an RTS franchise to a quest based MMO. Those changes were made because it was an MMO and at first it didn't even contain Skirmish mode.

I imagine a Pokemon MMO would make the same mistakes. After all, if they kept the same gameplay with the optional online matches, then it would be no different than a standard Pokemon game.

yeah it was definitely a bad combination, and they did it in a horribly lacking way.

as i mentioned, this has been tried plenty of times before, and nintendo force chokes every dev that tries to do it, but it has been proven to work and plenty of people were interested in it/playing them when they were out for their brief time.

here is a youtube video to show one of the many off:


listen, i don't want to play a pokemon mmo, and it is quite clear that you don't want one either, but there is evidence of it working before gamefreak even touches the damn games, so quite clearly there is a market for it.

..but is the market big enough to justify it? I mean buying a Pokemon game for $35-$40 is one thing, paying a monthly fee is another.

 

[Stealth20k]

""I don't think handheld game-only devices make sense anymore. Not when you have an iPod or an Android microtablet."

I dont think those devices make sense for gaming. And the fact that 3ds has been outselling everything for 2 years. Sort of proves that huh?

I love my 3DS and my Vita but I never see any out in the wild. I see plenty of people playing games on their tablets. So I would say that they must make sense for gaming...

I guess I need to get one sooner or later.

I see 3ds's all the time.

Considering this is the same man who said lynx would outsell gameboy. Why is he given a forum to speak?

 

[gmaverick019_v1legacy]

Wii U Pokemon MMO. That is all.

Some people say that this would do well. I'm skeptical. I'm a decent MMO fan; I've played[footnote]At least tried them. I've only put 200+ hours into WoW, Rift, SW:ToR, GW2 and EvE[/footnote] moooost of the big ones. I also enjoy Pokemon; myself and my brother probably have ~10 pokemon games between us. I still wouldn't play a Pokemon MMO. So I dunno.

Edited the footnote

Making single player franchises into MMO's rarely works out well. I say rarely to cover my ass but I don't actually know of any that have worked out well. For example, Skyrim sold millions and millions of copies and Oblivion was no slouch either, I'll bet most of those Elder Scrolls fans couldn't care less about the MMO. How many people wanted a third KOTOR game instead of an MMO?

People love Pokemon for what it is.

the only thing is people play pokemon competitively all the damn timeeeee, especially online (meta-game to be exact)

so we know there is technically already a "market" or such that does the online multiplayer of it, just not in a integrated setting.

personally i've been dying for a 3D pokemon on console, or an action based pokemon game (a is roll/dodge depending on your speed of the pokemon, the triggers all are different moves the pokemon can do and x and y can be passive abilities/etc...i just think pokemon can work amazingly in an action setting like they do on the cartoons, that or i just am fucking dying for a 3D pokemon regardless of changes in gameplay, you can't tell me that shit wouldn't sell like hotcakes parents wallets couldn't orgasm with money coming out fast enough for kids.

Just because people play online doesn't mean they want an MMO. I do have an example.

People play Age of Empires and Age of Mythology online all the time so Microsoft used your logic and created an Age of Empires MMO, it failed.

oh i know, believe me i'm not an mmo person, complete opposite to be certain, i was just stating that pokemon is a bit different compared to skyrim or kotor, those were EXTREME single player based games in every sense of the word, while pokemon has always had the concept of trading and battling with friends via cable or online, and all you have to do is check out a few pokemon threads to see how insanely similar/crazy the meta-gamers are compared to some mmo'ers. (not to mention how many times nintendo has had to shut down pokemon mmo's that were made by fans, they'd gain insane popularity and nintendo would QQ about it hard)


also, age of empires mmo was awful, just an awful game that destroyed a great franchise..i still remember my playthroughs of II and III being glorious.

Age of Empires Online was awful because they took the franchise from being an RTS franchise to a quest based MMO. Those changes were made because it was an MMO and at first it didn't even contain Skirmish mode.

I imagine a Pokemon MMO would make the same mistakes. After all, if they kept the same gameplay with the optional online matches, then it would be no different than a standard Pokemon game.

yeah it was definitely a bad combination, and they did it in a horribly lacking way.

as i mentioned, this has been tried plenty of times before, and nintendo force chokes every dev that tries to do it, but it has been proven to work and plenty of people were interested in it/playing them when they were out for their brief time.

here is a youtube video to show one of the many off:


listen, i don't want to play a pokemon mmo, and it is quite clear that you don't want one either, but there is evidence of it working before gamefreak even touches the damn games, so quite clearly there is a market for it.

..but is the market big enough to justify it? I mean buying a Pokemon game for $35-$40 is one thing, paying a monthly fee is another.

just on the wiiU? probably not, mmo lovers typically are on the pc, i was just stating the evidence that the game does work and has worked, feeless obviously, they weren't going to be able to charge for an IP they didn't own the rights to.

actually just came across this...apparently this mmo is still up and running just fine, here you go if you want to see for yourself:

http://pokemmo.eu/downloads/

free to play and seems that there is over 5500 threads in that websites forum alone, i would say that's pretty damn active.

 

[WeepingAngels]

""I don't think handheld game-only devices make sense anymore. Not when you have an iPod or an Android microtablet."

I dont think those devices make sense for gaming. And the fact that 3ds has been outselling everything for 2 years. Sort of proves that huh?

I love my 3DS and my Vita but I never see any out in the wild. I see plenty of people playing games on their tablets. So I would say that they must make sense for gaming...

I guess I need to get one sooner or later.

I see 3ds's all the time.

Considering this is the same man who said lynx would outsell gameboy. Why is he given a forum to speak?

LOL, someone says something that turns out to be false and they can no longer be trusted to speak? You could probably make a shorter list of people who are still allowed to speak than those who aren't.

I am glad you see 3D's all the time, I never do.

 

[ron1n]

pokemon is a bit different compared to skyrim or kotor, those were EXTREME single player based games in every sense of the word, while pokemon has always had the concept of trading and battling with friends via cable or online, and all you have to do is check out a few pokemon threads to see how insanely similar/crazy the meta-gamers are compared to some mmo'ers. (not to mention how many times nintendo has had to shut down pokemon mmo's that were made by fans, they'd gain insane popularity and nintendo would QQ about it hard)

This right here.

And you cannot compare shitty conventional mmo games to what pokemon could become if they ever took full advantage of the IP.

Hell if it offends people so much, remove the word 'mmo entirely'. Some sort of 3D pokemon game with co-op and competitive online multiplayer elements. Won't matter how they do it, will sell like hotcakes.

I mean look at the single player games. You cannot tell me they are 'great' games. It's the concept and the collecting and battling that is what keep people coming back. Otherwise they've been making the same game year after year with slight visual enhancements along the way. Isn't much to 'stuff up'.

 

[ron1n]

Ah crud double post. But yeah, ignoring all that, nintendo is going nowhere any time soon. They have many different cards up their sleeve that could pay off in a big way if they so chose.