3 ms·

I should have been more clear: per-game friend codes were the most egregious problem. Per-account friend codes are a reasonable-enough precaution, given their

by roc 13y ago

I should have been more clear: per-game friend codes were the most egregious problem. Per-account friend codes are a reasonable-enough precaution, given their target market. Even still: allowing some mute matchmaking and play, with friend codes required for anything involving trades or chat, is a superior solution to the same problem that was already available in the market to be co-opted [1], if only Nintendo ever considered what others had done and learned. [1] basically what ToonTown Online was doing in the same space, for the same reasons, since 2003.

derefr 13y ago
Really, I think this is a difference in outlook between the American and Japanese markets. Look at Pokemon, for example: in western markets, it was seen as a "you mean I have to buy two versions to 100% the game!?" cash-grab; in Japan--which is much denser, geographically--you were actually reasonably likely to have multiple people to trade with for any game with such features. To put it another way: Nintendo basically expects people to want to play with their "real friends" over the net--as an extension of their older "sit around a console in the living room together" dynamic--and sees no benefit in letting people play with/against strangers. They assume that if a kid wants badly to find someone to play a game with, they'll go and find someone in the real world, convince them [to convince their parents] to buy the game, and play it with them. This also, as a side-benefit (from Nintendo's perspective), shunts the work of "moderation" in these games to the parents: deciding whether to let your child hang around with some other child is already a well-established thing that parents do, and making it a prerequisite to establishing a game-play link means that parents can't complain to Nintendo for exposing their children to "the wrong sorts"--the responsibility was effectively passed back to them.

by roc 13y ago

derefr 13y ago

Really, I think this is a difference in outlook between the American and Japanese markets. Look at Pokemon, for example: in western markets, it was seen as a "you mean I have to buy two versions to 100% the game!?" cash-grab; in Japan--which is much denser, geographically--you were actually reasonably likely to have multiple people to trade with for any game with such features. To put it another way: Nintendo basically expects people to want to play with their "real friends" over the net--as an extension of their older "sit around a console in the living room together" dynamic--and sees no benefit in letting people play with/against strangers. They assume that if a kid wants badly to find someone to play a game with, they'll go and find someone in the real world, convince them [to convince their parents] to buy the game, and play it with them. This also, as a side-benefit (from Nintendo's perspective), shunts the work of "moderation" in these games to the parents: deciding whether to let your child hang around with some other child is already a well-established thing that parents do, and making it a prerequisite to establishing a game-play link means that parents can't complain to Nintendo for exposing their children to "the wrong sorts"--the responsibility was effectively passed back to them.