Also, it’s all very well saying spec changes are risky and non-trivial, and this is true: but one might then ask why a shared friends list was not in the spec in the first place. Not only is it obvious and (fundamental architecture issues notwithstanding) fairly simple, it had already been done. There was no innovation to do – just copy what already exists.

Not that I’m necessarily saying it matters much. Just that I’m saying, if this is the kind of thing that needs a spec change and/or changes to the underlying software structure, then (from an engineering point of view) someone really dropped the ball while the system was being engineered in the first place. From the point of view of Johnny Public… it might not make much difference.

I received a request for a feature today. It’s going to take me about an hour to implement, and the rest of a day to test. Allow for interruptions and other overhead, and I’ll say that it’s going to take me about 2-3 days to satisfy this customer.

Now, it’s true that I don’t know the internal details of Nintendo’s network support infrastructure. But: How hard can it be to take the existing Wii friends lists, export it to some simple format? If this is a task that requires more than a trivial amount of developer time, there are fundamental architectural issues that urgently need addressing.

Security is not a consideration here. The Wii has a WEB BROWSER on it which throws the doors open to an entire internet of porn, right now.

Well, it throws those doors open unless Parental Controls are on, I guess. I just checked on my Wii, and there’s a whole set of options controlling access to the Internet Channel, Wii email, the News Channel, the Shop Channel, etc., etc. in there.

This whole “well, the Wii has a web browser, so Nintendo might as well just put a ‘Talk to Live Child Molesters NOW!’ button on the Wii startup screen!” argument is weird.

It’s a tricky little contradiction for people to be simultaneously arguing that Nintendo should be implementing a complicated nuanced system full of options parents can set to restrict children’s access to the outside world AND that no security is possible because there’s a software component that lets children access the internet unless parental controls are turned on.

Let me put it bluntly: implementing any piece of software is trivial, as long as you are just coming up with brilliant ideas and not actually shipping anything. The moment your software is something that real people will actually use every day, then it’s a whole different ball game.

psu has written about this in some detail. I won’t bother to reiterate his points here. I don’t want to be condescending or mocking, but you need to understand that, in all seriousness, saying “First, assume that changing the spec is free” to a software engineer is sort of like saying “First, assume that there is no gravity and no friction” to a physicist. That’s what you’re doing.

The cost of a substantially better solution is not an issue, assuming they have even a single competent developer available to them. A system which allows the existing system friend code to be reused for any games played on the system would be trivial. (I described an easy means of doing this in my first comment.)

Security is not a consideration here. The Wii has a WEB BROWSER on it which throws the doors open to an entire internet of porn, right now. The horse has not merely left the barn, he’s burned it to the ground, turned state’s evidence, and joined the witness protection program.

Which leads to….

Dude: Peter’s central point is that Nintendo simply doesn’t care what the hardcore gamers think and has implemented the lowest cost online solution. Something in their own best interest as a for-profit corporation.

As to the security thing- the unintended consequences, and hence, risk to Nintendo, of Nintendo’s system are much easier to anticipate than MSFTs.

Peter is trying to claim Nintendo is doing this to stop some behavior that Live leaves in place, this is simply not true. Live better protects the children, not that neither is in much danger on either system.

Thanks for the heads up.

This site’s visitors share the author’s penchant for creating strawmen and spouting off ignorantly on a subject, so no sense sticking around.

The Nintendo system encourages children to play with adults, it does not limit them or protect them.

What if you play Animal crossing, and your son plays animal crossing? You have to expose your friends list to him since the only qualifier is the game, not the person.

Compare that to live which allows you to segment friends by the person, so each can have a seperate list – a list that can be locked down based by game rating and controlled by the parent.

When you make ignorant statements like Nintendo is doing this for the children, you only highlight your not understanding of the issues or systems. You might want to read up on the issue before you post anymore and just make yourself look even more foolish.

This suggests to me that they already have the following pieces in place: an infrastructure that supports the per-game key exchange and developer APIs that are mature and tested to support same. If we believe that Nintendo has arrived at the decision that people aren’t buying their games for the richness of their online experience, then this decision makes perfect sense. It’s the least-cost path to fulfilling the marketing checkbox that the Wii “support online play.”

That this isn’t convenient for you (or for me) is, really, quite beside the point. I think anyone arguing that rolling out any service like this is easy or low cost is deluding themselves. Therefore, it doesn’t surprise me in the least to see a company rolling out a software API and infrastructure that is, by amazing coincidence, exactly the same as the API and infrastructure they have already released once, successfully, just on a different platform.

The other issue that psu didn’t raise that I think is important is that Nintendo’s most valuable asset is their brand name, and I would expect them to guard that brand name jealously. We’ve already seen ridiculous stories on Fox News about Pictochat, for example. One decent (sorry, I guess I mean indecent) child molester story does exponentially more damage to Nintendo than it does to Microsoft. I presume with no proof that Nintendo’s online scheme is the way it is at least in part to try to head off the PR disaster issue.

One canard I’ve seen brought up is “Well, that doesn’t make sense, because the Wii has a web browser, and kids could use that to get in trouble!” This argument ignores two simple facts: First, PR is about perception, not reality, and secondly, everyone knows that the web is for everyone, but videogames are only for young children.