Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Wireless Networking Businesses Nintendo Hardware Entertainment Games

Nintendo Releasing Wireless Router for Revolution 290

Posted by CmdrTaco
from the wireless-uber-alles dept.
nmaster64 writes "Nintendo is really pushing their Nintendo Wi-fi hard, completely reversing the anti-online mentality they've held in years past. Nwizard.com reports, "Nintendo will soon be producing a router that will allow access to the Nintendo Wi-Fi Network on both the DS and the Revolution. The router plugs into a USB 2.0 port and transfers your computers internet connection wirelessly into your next-gen Nintendo devices." It should be noted this story came at almost the same time as Sony announced they dropped the PS3's router functionality." Update: 07/13 06:20 GMT by Z : Please note there is no source referenced for this "story", and this could in fact be some guy's pet theory.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Nintendo Releasing Wireless Router for Revolution

Comments Filter:
  • Yes, but... (Score:5, Funny)

    by mrRay720 (874710) on Tuesday July 12, 2005 @09:02AM (#13041248)
    ...is Mario WPA enabled? Without decent wireless security that princess will just get stolen again. :(
  • by ReformedExCon (897248) <reformed.excon@gmail.com> on Tuesday July 12, 2005 @09:03AM (#13041260)
    The ability to reduce the number of cables is absolutely outstanding. A console that can be attached to the Internet without having to run a wire from the router or wireless hub to the box is a godsend. The ping times might suffer a little, though, I bet.

    I can't understand why Sony would want to withdraw WiFi from the PS3 spec, though. If it is a technical issue, then you can bet they will come back later with an add-on WiFi dongle. If it is something else, then they've got me in the dark as to why they would reduce the spec at this stage when PS3s aren't even scheduled to hit the stores yet.

    But as wireless networking becomes faster, and broadband providers start providing wireless router modems, this kind of thing is going to become the norm. Not only games, of course, but almost anything that needs to "think" more than a "dumb" device will be designed to take advantage of the home-wireless LAN.
    • by John Betonschaar (178617) on Tuesday July 12, 2005 @09:11AM (#13041322)
      I can't understand why Sony would want to withdraw WiFi from the PS3 spec, though.

      Probably because they can't deliver what they've promised, just like with the PSX and the PS2: a mouthfull of hype and buzz, but in the end half of the features are pulled, and the performance is nowhere near the initial announcements (remember how the PS2 would be '100 times faster than any PC on the market' at the time it would be launched. See the PS3/Cell buzz right now...

      Nintendo however not only 'reverses the anti-online mentality' but also reverses Sony's marketing practices: stay silent and keep your feature set undisclosed until its really sure what the final product will be like, this way not disappointing their future customers.

      Still Sony seems to be winning over Nintendo... Which IMO is a pity, not only hardware-wise but also software-wise...

      • > Still Sony seems to be winning over Nintendo... Which IMO is a pity, not only hardware-wise but also software-wise...

        Software is the reason Nintendo is losing. We're treated to a slim selection of Mario Mario Donkey Kong Mario Mario Zelda Mario Mario Mario fini. The occasional standouts like Metroid Prime and Resident Evil don't make up for a vast empty desert where titles should be (some of us don't even like Zelda).

        Don't give me lines about how their pint-sized lineup emphasizes quality over quan
        • Don't give me lines about how their pint-sized lineup emphasizes quality over quantity either. Half of the PS2 line is redundant shovelware that could go out the window, but that still makes the shelf at EBGames three times as big, with quality titles like Sly Cooper, GTA, and God of War.

          As someone who has owned a GC (sold it because I don't have much time left to play computer games nowadays) and an XBOX (yeah I know, but I only bought it second-hand so I could chip it and use it as a Linux box, which I
          • I may have to concede your point there. I bought a PS2 very late in the game, and have bought only 20 titles so far (most used), but I doubt I'd have sustained that purchasing momentum if I'd bought it new, so I figure I might own a whopping 35 games. And there are some real good ones for Nintendo, and I figure Nintendo's vertical integration is no worse than Sony's market manipulations.

            Still, almost all the best games are simultaneously ported to either Sony's or Microsoft's offering (often both), while
    • by Manchot (847225) on Tuesday July 12, 2005 @09:11AM (#13041324)
      I'm getting the impression that for this generation of consoles, Nintendo's decided to sit out of the marketing hype war that Sony and Microsoft are enaged in. Then, whenever either of those two companies admits to overhyping their product, Nintendo swoops in and shows them up by announcing a previously-unknown feature (such as this).
    • by Hast (24833) on Tuesday July 12, 2005 @09:31AM (#13041457)
      I can't understand why Sony would want to withdraw WiFi from the PS3 spec, though.

      That's because they are not removing the WiFi from the PS3. They are removing the /router/ functionality.

      Originally it was supposed to have 3 extra Gbit ethernet connections on the back allowing you to use the PS3 as a networking router. I guess they came to their senses and figured out that no-one wants a console to be a router when a dedicated router which is quiet is dirt cheap.
    • The router plugs into a USB 2.0 port and transfers your computers internet connection wirelessly into your next-gen Nintendo devices.

      This is no good. Your Nintendo equipment is now dependent on owning a PC in order to have internet play? Are they advertising the "extra PC" as an additional costs you will need to make in order to play on the internet? Bet they gloss over that one.

      NOTE: In order to use the controllers on your Nintendo game system, we will require you to connect a special module to y

    • The ability to reduce the number of cables is absolutely outstanding. A console that can be attached to the Internet without having to run a wire from the router or wireless hub to the box is a godsend. The ping times might suffer a little, though, I bet.

      Get a wireless bridge [cnet.com] and you can have your godsend today. It's a miracle!
    • The ping times might suffer a little, though, I bet.

      Why is that? Please forgive my ignorance, but I never understood why everyone says that wireless connections have slower ping times. Is this just a misperception, or is this fact, and if so what is the reason that wireless would ping slower?

      LS

      • I've wondered the same thing. As far as I know, the wireless signal from my gaming adapter downstairs is traveling at light speed to my wireless router upstairs. Perhaps there is small overhead on conversion of the signal or something?

        I can see that my bandwidth is narrowed when using wireless over a direct ethernet connection, but I can't see how latency is hurt.

  • Router? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Freaky Spook (811861) on Tuesday July 12, 2005 @09:04AM (#13041262)
    How is it a router if it has to plug into a PC to use its internet connection and not nativley negotiate it coming in?

    Wouldn't you just buy a router dedicated to handle both connections sepratley? They are not that expensive these days.
    • yeah but a good one is around the range of the Revolutions expected price, they want this to be dirt cheap.

      As I said in another post, I have a feeling this is for those people who dont have wifi and who might even still use dialup. Likely anyone who does have a wifi setup wont need it. Nintendo is basically taking the Apple route and making it stupidly easy for the common man to do, which for a gaming system I think is a very smart move.

    • All gateways are routers but not all routers are gateways.
  • I'm curious what futire plans they have instore for this. Nintendo is always considered a great innovator so it stands to reason that they will come up with some intersting things to use this router for. At least I hope so, because who wants to us the ds to browse the net when you have to be near a computer anyway just to access the wifi signal =p
  • Windows only? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Apreche (239272) on Tuesday July 12, 2005 @09:09AM (#13041298) Homepage Journal
    USB eh? Will it only work on windows? Nintendo has traditionally stayed away from the PC to avoid the inconsistency that comes with such a platform. I'm surprised they didn't just make a router that connects with a cat5 cable and does DHCP. Would be much more seamless than a USB device and OS independent.

    As for security, I'm not worried. It is likely that this router will be for Nintendo devices only and wont be subject to war drivers. Notice on the bottom of the DS it says "RSA Secured". Whatever patented security mechanism that refers to is what makes Nintendo wireless different from the wireless our laptops use.
    • " I'm surprised they didn't just make a router that connects with a cat5 cable and does DHCP."
      I am not. This solution will work with any type of internet connection even dial up. But will it work with Mac?
    • USB eh? Will it only work on windows?
      bash$ modprobe usbnet

      bash$ ifconfig usb0 10.0.0.27
      I think this would work nicely on a Linux box - provided they use a standard usbnet instead of some proprietary protocol over USB. It's pretty much as standard as CAT5 ethernet.

    • Yes, this is my fear. Sure, you can say that USB is supported on Win, Linux, Apple, but then that assumes there is some special software (no doubt with DRM for our convenience). Why not just make it like the Apple Airport Express wireless station that just has a Cat-5 connection? Just use DHCP. It's that easy.

      I do NOT play games on a PC, but only on my Gamecube. If Nintendo all of the sudden relies on a Windows PC to do all this magic, I will have to turn in my fanboy card.
    • Re:Windows only? (Score:5, Informative)

      by Torne (78524) <torne@wolfpuppy.org.uk> on Tuesday July 12, 2005 @10:07AM (#13041782)
      No, the RSA encryption on the DS is not used to secure the actual wireless communications, but only to secure wireless download play (when you play multiplayer over wifi with only one cartridge between you). The code sent over wifi to multiboot all the DSes that don't have a cartridge is RSA signed, and an unmodified DS will refuse to run multiboot code that does not pass the signature check.

      Once the DS has been booted, either by multiboot or by having a cartridge inserted, the 'RSA Secured' is irrelevant, and any security which is then used is only whatever security the game developer has put into their software, usually zero.

      The device Nintendo are proposing here basically seems to be nothing more than an access-point mode USB wifi adapter, possibly with some software to configure Windows' connection sharing. It will work just as well with any standard wifi router/access point, as far as anyone can tell (online DS games soon to be released, such as Animal Crossing DS, are being promoted as working at any wifi hotspot, something that wouldn't happen if they used some Nintendo proprietary 'thing').

      Speculation: They didn't make a router that connects with a cat5 cable because these days a lot of people have all-in-one wireless router/broadband/everything boxes anyway, and probably most of the people who don't already have some kind of solution to this, integrated or otherwise, only have their broadband connected to a single PC. They could've built this functionality into the Revolution, making it an access point in its own right and giving it an ethernet port, but it's cheaper not to, I guess, especially if my speculation is true.
    • Re:Windows only? (Score:4, Insightful)

      by poot_rootbeer (188613) on Tuesday July 12, 2005 @11:55AM (#13043080)
      USB eh? Will it only work on windows?

      Somehow I get the feeling that Nintendo is going to try to avoid making it a prerequisite that you own and use a product sold by one of their competitors in the console market.
  • by Quarters (18322) on Tuesday July 12, 2005 @09:09AM (#13041300)
    It should be noted this story came at almost the same time as Sony announced they dropped the PS3's router functionality.

    It should also be noted that there is no connection whatsoever between the the statements/actions of either company and there is no point in the above sentence being in the article summary.

    Besides, the Nintendo USB2.0 WiFi device is a bridge, not a router.

    • It should also be noted that there is no connection whatsoever between the the statements/actions of either company and there is no point in the above sentence being in the article summary.

      No point? It was a contrasting statement. I did not know that Sony had made that decision, as much I as I did not know about Nintendo's plans for this "router." (bridge). I found it interesting that these two console manufacturers are seemingly choosing different strategies. I did not see an implication in the summary

    • It should also be noted that there is no connection whatsoever between the the statements/actions of either company and there is no point in the above sentence being in the article summary.

      On the same day Sony dropped a feature from the PS3, Nintendo announced a feature on the Revolution (with next to nothing known about it). Now it may have been a co-incidence, but they're both about features for the next consoles. I'd say there's very much a point of it being in the summary.
  • There's not much info in the article. Is this some Windows-only kludge?
    • There's not much info in the article. Is this some Windows-only kludge?

      Well, the fact that no offical info has been released yet aside, ask yourself - why should Nintendo care about supporting anything other than Windows?

      From everything i've ever seen, the group of people is not very big that:

      A) Don't have access to a pure Windows machine or an easy dual-boot.

      B) Actually want to play (console) games in the first place.

      C) Would buy a Nintendo console if B is true.

      D) Don't want Linux or Mac support so
    • The game console doesn't require a PC. Much of its functionality requires a net connection, though, and this is just one way to provide it to the box.
  • Source? (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Pointdexter (89416)
    I notice this was submitted by the same guy that wrote the post over at nwizard. Is there any official news on it?
  • Standard spec? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by m50d (797211) on Tuesday July 12, 2005 @09:17AM (#13041348) Homepage Journal
    Will it still work with a standard wireless router like the one I have in front of me?
  • Hmm (Score:5, Insightful)

    by BronxBomber (633404) on Tuesday July 12, 2005 @09:18AM (#13041362)
    Among all the hype with all 3 consoles, I hope as much attention is being paid to game playability and fun factor.

    The Genesis, NES, and TurboGraphx16 werent online (well, the Genesis was with XBand eventually), and some of the most innovative, playable games were released on those 3 platforms.

    Super Mario Bros 3, Earthworm Jim, the original Metal Gear, Final Fantasy - a long laundry list of original titles.

    Here we are now in the wireless age and I cant count how many shooter titles are on the Xbox, or generic RPG titles are available on the PS2. The GC clearly still holds rank with gameplay innovation, but interestingly they sit 3rd overall in the worldwide console battle.

    Its kind of sad, really. The market seems to be more concerned with whether or not I can get on the net with yet ANOTHER device, instead of making games compelling enough for me to WANT to get online with it.

    • The Genesis, NES, and TurboGraphx16 werent online (well, the Genesis was with XBand eventually), and some of the most innovative, playable games were released on those 3 platforms.

      Teleplay Modem. [nesworld.com]

    • Oh, what a load of garbage.

      Among all the hype with all 3 consoles, I hope as much attention is being paid to game playability and fun factor.

      The only company that can pay attention to playability and "fun" is Nintendo since they are the only ones that are making games (with small exceptions). So Sony and MS should focus on making their consoles easy to program for and make sure that they have the power and features that gamers want. They need to focus on controller comfort and size. They can't focus
  • by _iris (92554) on Tuesday July 12, 2005 @09:19AM (#13041369) Homepage
    "...completely reversing the anti-online mentality they've held in years past."

    Since when did Nintendo have an anti-online mentality? All I have ever read Nintendo executives say is that the market was not ready and would only be ready at the tail end of the GameCube's lifecycle, so it didn't make financial sense for them to go out of their way to support it on the GC.

    So far I'd say they were pretty accurate. The XBox Live subscription level is about 2.5% of the worldwide sales; 350,000 subscribers out of 13.7 mil sales. Those numbers are from 2003 and late 2004 respectively. The fact that Microsoft hasn't published their subscription level for XBox Live since 2003 is pretty telling that they are in the very situation that Nintendo did not want to be in. They brought a product to market before the market was ready. It was just successful enough that it is going to be a pain to support, yet it isn't successful enough to be cost effective.

    • They were up to a million [gamersmark.com] as of a year ago (prior to Halo 2 or EA Sports).

      What's odd about Nintendo's online stance is that they actually produced a broadband adapter, but then only a single game that actually works with it (Phantasy Star, as I recall). I'm not sure what you see as their strategy was as much intentional as it was a flameout.

      Xbox Live is, I'd argue, the thing that pushed the Xbox past the Gamecube in sales. The top-selling games are consistently online-enabled and it's a real point of diff
      • 7.2% is not very good market penetration when you are the only competitor on your level.

        I'm pretty sure the PS broadband adapter anomoly was an attempt to convince Sega to develop exclusively for Nintendo.
        • Sorry... looks like it's closer to 2 million [pgnx.net].

          More importantly than the two million subscribers is the fact that they'll go into the next generation console race with a huge built-in online userbase and a lot of experience under their belt.

          I'm pretty sure the PS broadband adapter anomoly was an attempt to convince Sega to develop exclusively for Nintendo.

          That's as good an explanation as any, but it still makes their whole "we don't believe in online" story sound bogus.
      • Xbox Live is, I'd argue, the thing that pushed the Xbox past the Gamecube in sales. The top-selling games are consistently online-enabled and it's a real point of differentiation for that console. It's a very well-executed service.

        Xbox Live is the only reason I even own an Xbox. In fact, all but two of my Xbox games are online-playable (not aware mind you, but actual XBL multiplayer).

        So yes, I'd agree...without XBL Nintendo and MS would be right next to each other, sales wise.
    • They support online play indirectly with the GC. There's the broadband adapter (IF you can find it) and Warppipe(http://cubeonline.warppipe.com/ [warppipe.com]). Now, Nintendo obviously does not support this directly(and neither will the company, Warppipe.com), but it will let you play Mario Kart (GC) online and alot of people have been using it and there is a community behind it.
  • Because I always wanted to play more shooter/tactical strategy clones with people named "H4X0RRD00D" and "Assmonkey" who type like they failed a third-grade English class.

    Seriously though - am I one of the only people looking for a good single-player experience anymore? While I can see the appeal of online play in certain areas, it seems to discourage innovation in the areas of gameplay, story and dialog, and, well, *fun.* Just look at the options for online games right now - you have shooter clones, Splint

    • Re:Yay, online play! (Score:3, Interesting)

      by rAiNsT0rm (877553)
      Nope, you are not alone. Configuring network addressing/firewalls, downloading patches, Logging into a game, finding people to play against, and then getting sniped at the spawn point every time makes for a real enjoyable gaming experience... at least people like to think so.

      I've been a gamer for over 20 years, a member of the gaming media, and NEVER am I compelled to play an online title. I just want to escape a bit when I play a game not be thrust right back into the asshats of society with spamming/chea
    • Add me to the list that, for the most part, couldn't care less about online play. I got into Final Fantasy XI for a good long while, but 99% of the time, I just want an immersive, single player experience. I was interested in Battlefield2 because it looks really cool, but I can't find mention of any single player missions, so I assume it's online only. Which means I'm not getting it.
    • Online play varies...getting a game of Wild Chicken (Crimson Skies) game going with 8 or 10 decent players, utilizing the voice comms, it can be a whole lot of fun. The competition can be fun, and lends a lot of replay value where some 1-player offerings are lacking.

      That said, listening to a bunch of 13-year-olds either talk audibly about how high they are, or let you know via text that "u r teh suxors" can get old really fast.

      Personally, I had a decent friends list going on XBL before I ended up her
  • I can't remember where I read it, but there was an article somewhere that was suggesting that Nintendo was going to take a different approach for online gaming. What was being suggested was only hardcore gamers actually pay up for the monthly fees, which are applied to the X-Box network and the MMORPGs. Nintendo was said to want to make the networked playing experience more accessible - I'm guessing reducing the entry cost or eliminating it, after all after paying $60 for the game, it is only a handful of p
  • Nintendo has had an online service for every one of their major consoles, going all the way back to the mid 80's with their Famicom.

    While they may not have a major one up and running today, they are far from anti-online. If you ask me, the only reason they don't have one currently is because there is no profit to be made today in that arena.

    Its called smart business, not anti-online. In the same vein, is the MSFT games division anti-profit?
  • If you can't own the wires to the house, which means you'd probably get some service fee, why not own the box at the end of the wires? The best part about owning it is that you get to say what QoS you give to the PC, and what you give to the Revolution and DS.

    I'm guessing the PC will get "best-effort," while the DS and Revolution get much better service. After all, why launch an internet-enabled console which happens to have a widely touted online game-download service, if you didn't want to give it a gr

Today's scientific question is: What in the world is electricity? And where does it go after it leaves the toaster? -- Dave Barry, "What is Electricity?"

Working...