People forget that Nintendo has done "online" decades before except only in Japan. And Nintendo's GC-era argument that people weren't ready for online was true. Not until the last 2 years did the audience for online significantly grow.

Straight from the hard sourced facts from Wikipedia (watch where I bold now):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xbox#Multiplayer_gaming

"On November 15, 2002, Microsoft launched its Xbox Live online gaming service, allowing subscribers to play online Xbox games with (or against) other subscribers all around the world and download new content for their games to the system's hard drive. This online service works exclusively with a broadband Internet connection. Approximately 250,000 subscribers had signed up within 2 months of Xbox Live's launch.^[8] In July 2004, Microsoft announced that Xbox Live had reached 1 million subscribers, and one year later, in July 2005, that membership had reached 2 million."

XBox 1 sold 24 million in its 4 year lifetime. Launched in USA November 15, 2001 and everywhere else within the span of 4 months. According to this Live which came out on the one-year anniversary of XBox was put in motion. By January 2003 it had 250,000 subscribers. A year and a half later in July 2004, that number quadrupled to 1,000,000 subscribers. One year after that in July 2005 the figure doubled to 2,000,000 subscribers. XBox was ended by of XBox 360 later that November so that number probably didn't move much since that July.

2,000,000 Live-ers out of 24,000,000 XBox-owners-in-general equals 1/12 or roughly 8.33% of all XBox users.

Now watch this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xbox_360#Xbox_Live

"As of December 31, 2006, Xbox Live has over 5 million subscribers.^[1]"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xbox_Live#History

"Xbox Live hit a milestone in July 2004, [1] when it achieved 1 million subscribers; and again in March 2007, when it achieved 6 million subscribers."

According to VGChartz XBox 360 has sold just under 10 million units. It launched November 22, 2005. That 2005 July the figure was 2 million XBox Live users. By the end of last year, 2006, Live had multiplied that figure 2 1/2 times up to 5 million. 3 months later in March 2007 it's 6 million.

Round XBox 360's numbers up to 10 million and you have 6,000,000 Live-ers out of 10,000,000 XBox 360-owners-in-general. That's 3/5 or 60% of all XBox 360 users.

8.33% vs. 60%. YOU do the math.

Microsoft had money to burn so they could go out there and subsidize things like this whether successful or not. Nintendo doesn't waste money so they looked at how much people really wanted it and outside of a vocal minority obviously not many. They put together broadband online access for some GC titles (Mario Kart: Double Dash) but obviously not as many people were willing to go for that. Online play was thought to be a 6th gen thing. It REALLY is a 7th gen thing. And now that the 7th gen is here look who's suddenly developing their online strategy: Nintendo!

People tend to have tunnel vision that tells them that their immediate reality is ALL of reality when it isn't. YOU might have wanted online play but what about most people? You and your FRIEND might have wanted online play but what about most people? You, your friend, some kids across the street, and your COUSIN might have wanted online play but what about most people? "Most People" is a mass-market business' favorite topic.

I feel Nintendo is going to do marvelous with this online thing and bring something fresh to the table. They are not just gonna go: "OK, play online and have fun!" They are going to, yes, innovate the online experience and bring new types of games to the table that use the online play feature in a more integrated way.

People complain about the friend codes but tough. There's kids to protect. Who wants to give easy access for some pedophile to get access to kids? It's really not all that much a hassle I don't think. Isn't it like punching in phone numbers? I'm very anxious to see what they do with it. They've actually got the experience in this field so I'm not as worried as some others are about them pulling this off.

They're gonna do all this and it's free. How can anyone put down this company? I can't understand it. Neutrally I think XBox Live and Nintendo's online will end up being collectively equal services. XBox Live would give you the unfettered freedom but with a cost and Nintendo gives you more intergrated online play experiences for free but with cumbersomeness of friend codes. And has anyone played with Playstation Network service on here? I'd like to know how it works. Get a fuller picture of online play, you know?

John Lucas

Johnlucas ... You're missing the fact that XBox live subscription numbers are heavily inflated.

If I remember correctly, starting in 2003 every XBox was sold with a 3 month free subscription to XBox live which (when activated) Microsoft counted as an XBox Live subscription; even if users allowed it to lapse later it was still counted. With the XBox 360 XBox Live Siver accounts are considered XBox Live subscriptions; it isn't surprising that more people find value in game demos and inexpensive XBox Live Arcade games than online multiplayer.

Simply, hilarious.

This coming from a Xbox Live Beta Tester.  

...They also count 'replaced' systems as new sales too don't they?

*Runs to the hills...

 well, as you said, can't blame them for trying.  i mean, it's a competitive marketplace!  but still, must be the wrong culture to have pretty much EVERYTHING you try (the ones you listed) fail so miserably... i think MS just needs a blood infusion these days, or maybe it just takes another revolution for them to change, much the same way IBM is now more and more about consulting.

after all, when you're making like $10bln a year, you're gonna be arrogant and not wanna change.  it's hard to have a complete upheaval when you're making that much money.

 Quartz, if this is the case, I wonder how much this has boosted their numbers. Given how widespread the red lights of death was at varrious points.

Well that's even worse then, isn't it? Wow.

Since I've never had any XBoxes I have no reference point so I just use the sourced information from Wikipedia.

What you say only proves my point further. Nintendo was right last gen about online play being not as big a deal as some would like it to be. It's starting to be now in the 7th generation where online users make up a more significant part of the system's buyer base.

Online play isn't new either and PC gamers often wonder what the hubbub is about when they've been doing that forever.

Yeah I figured Silver was included in subscription numbers.

John Lucas 

Oh, John Lucas, how long-winded you are. The fact remains that Nintendo made a lot of errors. They are not the only company innovating and expanding the market of video games. You tell me I need to study video gaming history but I beg to differ considering I was part of it.

As far as N64 is concerned, cartridges were a MISTAKE. Low memory on the N64 was a MISTAKE. A stupid looking controller that wasn't comfortable I'd say was a mistake. Taking 3rd parties for granted was probably their biggest mistake and led to the first 2 mentioned.

You say the Gamecube had faster loading times which just proves that it was unneccessary to stick with cartridges. Comparing a memory card to a cartridge is cute, but you don't run games off of a memory card. The flash/SD/memory stick has gotten faster now, which is why the PSP also loads faster playing games on the memory stick, but a hard drive is now faster (ipod anyone?).  Not of that, but those fast flash cards are limited in space especialyl when you compare costs.  Not having more than 512MB of space on the Wii was a mistake in my opinion.

Now for your more ridiculous statement: "People forget that Nintendo has done "online" decades before except only in Japan. And Nintendo's GC-era argument that people weren't ready for online was true. Not until the last 2 years did the audience for online significantly grow." I'd like some nice "sourced" links showing that Nintendo had online games "decades" before. That's pretty funny. Japan may not have been ready, but the US sure was and Microsoft (and to a lesser extent Sony) proved that. Not having online play for the Gamecube was a MISTAKE. I would have bought one if they had it! Sega was the first to include a modem in a console with the Dreamcast, not Nintendo.

I am not saying that Nintendo does not innovate, I'm just saying they are not the default kings of the industry forever just becase they saved video games in 1983.

windbane, See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satellaview and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nintendo_64DD#RANDnet for more about Nintendo's online services in the 90s. Lingyis, When you consider the H&E is already supposed to be the "new Microsoft", I wouldn't keep my hopes too high.

Yeah, I really see how they pushed the envelope. I'm assuming their abandonment of online play was due to the fact they tried a failed expansion in the 64DD that then on top of that included a subscription based online service? I wouldn't consider that important. Their failures, if you can even call them serious attempts, should not have biased them completely away from online gaming. They continually say they know what consumers want but they only know what certain consumers want, the ones that opt for their consoles. Other consumers want other things that Nintendo does not provide, like third parties being allowed access to online code for the PS3 and 360. Every single console company has faults, Nintendo included. The glamorization of them now because of the success of the Wii is sickening. 2 failed add-ons in Japan should not have been proof that consumers don't want online games.

Thanks for those links, though. Good to know they "innovated."

Edit: I'd like to point out that SNES and N64 were not "decades" ago. Thanks for the links again, though, reverie. I can honestly say I don't remember those failed attempts at add-ons. You'd think they would have learned from Sega.