-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Capcom announces online fees for Monster Hunter G Wii
- Thread starter duckroll
- Start date
This topic feels a lot like a bunch of people that weren't interested in MH until it came to a Nintendo console suddenly finding out what MH is like on consoles.
News flash, Monster Hunter 1 had online fees in Japan.
Also, Im getting a "Im cheap ass gamer so I demand everything for free" vibe.
News flash, Monster Hunter 1 had online fees in Japan.
Also, Im getting a "Im cheap ass gamer so I demand everything for free" vibe.
PepsimanVsJoe
Member
MH3 Wii US won't be free to pay online.
Ya might as well let that run through your system so you don't blow up about it later.
Ya might as well let that run through your system so you don't blow up about it later.
DeaconKnowledge
Member
How is the single player for Monster Hunter? I've only played a small part of the tutorial on PSP on the way back from a road trip, is It really robust? I'm largely a single player gamer and while I expect I'll play the multi for MH3, I don't want it to be the ONLY reason I play.
PepsimanVsJoe
Member
Monster Hunter is still worth it in singleplayer. I put over 40 hours into MHF2 and probably would have done more if the PSP's analog nub wasn't a pile of garbage.
There's really not much of any story(Giant monsters may or may not be terrorizing a village out in the middle of nowhere) but you have tons of missions, a large assortment of beasts that you have to learn every aspect of how they behave and fight to take out, multiple strategies and weapons/traps for getting rid of them, and a very deep crafting system where you can make all kinds of neato armor and weapons.
There's really not much of any story(Giant monsters may or may not be terrorizing a village out in the middle of nowhere) but you have tons of missions, a large assortment of beasts that you have to learn every aspect of how they behave and fight to take out, multiple strategies and weapons/traps for getting rid of them, and a very deep crafting system where you can make all kinds of neato armor and weapons.
Okay, long-time MMO player here so monthly fees aren't new to me ...
But that is too expensive. This isn't a persistent world - there's no sense for this to be so damned high. That's more than half of what it costs for me to play EVE Online a month. They better at least cut that in half for American release or this game is going to die online.
Hell, I'll still buy it just to play local multiplayer ... but screw online if that's how they're going to price Tri.
But that is too expensive. This isn't a persistent world - there's no sense for this to be so damned high. That's more than half of what it costs for me to play EVE Online a month. They better at least cut that in half for American release or this game is going to die online.
Hell, I'll still buy it just to play local multiplayer ... but screw online if that's how they're going to price Tri.
Jaded Alyx
Member
It's not likely that there will be fees when it's released in the West.Vinci said:
Haven't anyone ever heard of Guild Wars 1/2? And remember the main reason they were free to play? Because there's no need for a big as fuck cluster of servers to mantain a huge persistent world with hundreds of players at the same time in the same place where you have to keep control of everyone and give that info to everyone nearby, instead you make your party and go adventuring ignoring everyone else around not playing with you to the point you can free those connections and make the game ad-hoc between the players so Capcom is basically charging for thin air. What would you think if you had to pay an extra monthly fee to play online co-op on FFCC, GeOW, Halo, etc?
And I'm not paying a single cent for an experience I can already have better and for free.
And I'm not paying a single cent for an experience I can already have better and for free.
jonnybryce
Member
speedpop said:
If you're in a slow game, you can find another that runs silky smoothe that instant. When the developer decides to pull the plug, you can still play. Theres 100000000x less downtime for maintence on P2P, and most important for me, you can do something about it if the game is running like shit instead of hoping the direct server gets taken care of by Capcom.
DS is = to P2P, if not inferrior IMO. I don't see how it's any other way. I'm not forgetting that point, I just think it's wild to pay for a game that isn't even an MMORPG without a truly valid reason.
Jaded Alyx
Member
jonnybryce
Member
beje said:
That is really fucking true. Guild Wars was small parties and off you went in your own world where you couldn't see anyone else. No gameplay took place in the lobbies unlike games like City of Heroes where you'd see battles going on as you ran by.
Xiaoki said:
But there weren't fees here. So, irrelevance.
Tobor said:
Just because it's been done before doesn't mean it's satisfactory. The people complaining now could be the same ones complaining then. It's stupid to pay to play for this type of game, then and now. Especially on Wii.
jonnybryce
Member
Rorschach said:
lol@u2
Jaded Alyx
Member
The PS1/PS2/PC versions.beje said:
RuneFactoryFanboy
Member
Tobor said:
I've played a few Pay-to-play games in my life. Ragnarok Online (3 yrs), PSO (2 yrs), PSU (1 yr). I can only speak from my personal experience so I don't know if others feel the same.Xiaoki said:
When I'm really getting into a game and playing it daily with friends it’s not that big a deal. I don't mind paying a few dollars a month when I'm having a blast. It beats spending $50 for a new game every month to keep me entertained.
But the problem occurs when the game becomes anything less than addicting. When the game tapers off from being a daily routine to wanting to set it down for a few days or more. At that point I start looking at how much I’m playing and if it still justifies the monthly fee. If I’m only logging on 1-2 times a week, or in other words 4-8 times a month, I don’t feel its worth it anymore. That’s a big hang-up with me because now I’m sitting on a game that I still think is fun and want to play, but won’t because I can’t justify the cost. It prematurely kills the fun far earlier than the games natural course would have.
Pay-to-play also creates this anxiety feeling like I have to be playing to be getting my moneys worth. I like a variety of games and it’s not uncommon for me to not be in the mood for a certain game for 1-2 weeks at a time. Yet when I pay monthly, anytime I’m playing something else I feel like I’m not making use of that time I paid for. I hate that feeling, and I hate almost forcing myself to play the pay-to-play game just to feel I’m getting my moneys worth.
So call my opinion stupid, call me a cheap ass, but it doesn’t change how I feel.
I've been playing MHF2 on the PSP. In my opinion these loot games thrive on being multiplayer. I didn’t mind playing PSO offline back on my Gamecube but that’s because I knew later I would at least be hooking up with my friends and playing split screen. I’m sure MH would still be fun for me offline but without that multiplayer appeal I wouldn’t have the drive to dump hundreds of hours into it.kottila said:
The Take Out Bandit
Member
Orin GA said:
Wait, there was a fee to play the PS2 version? :O
crimsonheadGCN
Banned
The Take Out Bandit said:
Yes, there was a fee in Japan to play online.
XiaNaphryz
LATIN, MATRIPEDICABUS, DO YOU SPEAK IT
Sony was winning the console warz, so of course not. Hell, most people out in the West didn't even notice, look through this thread for plenty of examples.Orin GA said:
Fundamental rule of GAF: there are people who will look for any excuse to troll/bash anything to suit their agenda. System warz!!1!
jonnybryce said:
This is the stupid part. What difference does it make that it's on the Wii? It's a standalone service, no different in any way from PSO, which charged for online years ago on every system under the sun!
Acting as if it's some extra offense that they would dare to charge for Wii online play is ridiculous at best.
Eteric Rice
Member
Might be worth it depending on how Capcom does it's online. If they do their own online service, they'll probably allow Wii-Speak and what not. Also probably won't be friends codes.
MightyKAC
Member
beje said:
Always pay to play in Japan (except for PSP) and always free in the states. So yeah, the butt hurting here is premature. I really don't see Capcom making us pay for a subscription if they what this to hit big in the US. Not that any of this matters to me since I'll be buying the inevitable psp port of this and MH3.
jonnybryce said:
First point: 99% of the lag comes from the players line.
Second point: you're screwed either way, server or not. Matchmaking, authentication of legal copies and stats tracking are server based even if the system is P2P, so if servers are offline, you are too.
Third point: Yeah, like Live (p2p based) doesn't have downtime.
Fourth point: *facepalm* yeah, you can debug the network code in the game if there's no server involved.
So lol.
Simply, the main reason between why server based online is fairly superior to p2p based online is server and network load.
A: One machine has to act as a host. Added processing load, network overhead, etc etc. You won't see something bigger than eight players using a p2p system, since the game would began to lag. Also related so second point. If there's dedicated servers, you have a machine that can take fairly heavier games. All games capable of 16 or more players at once use dedicated servers.
B: Network load on one machine. Since all the players have to connect to a single host, this host better have a good internet connection. If the connection is not good, online matches get nearly unplayable. Servers always have a far better internet connection that a home user would have, so again, better possibilities of having a good match.
Plus with server based online some dirty cheater tricks can't be used, like lag switching.
test_account
XP-39C²
I didnt know that it would cost money to play Monster Hunter G Wii online, or at least i must have forgotten about it if i knew it 
I think the online fee prices seems ok. 100 Wii points is about 1 US dollars, right?
I think the online fee prices seems ok. 100 Wii points is about 1 US dollars, right?rollingstart
Banned
billy.sea said:
How do you people jump to that conclusion? it's not some huge conspiracy, it's just that people didn't know the previous games in Japan also cost money to play online. It's not like MH2 got as much interest here as MH3 is getting and the news is just a surprise. Besides, it's not entirely out of reason for expectations to change in 3+ years on a console more integrated with online.
SilverLunar
Member
Never played Monster Hunter and i think Tri will be my first.
If single player is not that satesfactory enough i can play with my brother, Doesn't Tri have split screen multiplayer? That's enough for me (my internet connection sucks anyway)
If single player is not that satesfactory enough i can play with my brother, Doesn't Tri have split screen multiplayer? That's enough for me (my internet connection sucks anyway)
The reason GW was free to play was because they had a different revenue stream in mind from conception. The premise was that they would make the majority of their money by selling FULL PRICED stand-alone expansion packs every six months. They didn't make it free to play because it didn't cost them anything. They made it free to give themselves a SIGNIFICANT market advantage. Peer to peer or not, the cost of business was not cheap to them. They just thought they could eat the cost and make up for it by selling expensive expansions to a greatly inflated playerbase.beje said:
Doesn't matter whether a MMORPG is free to play or not, somebody, somewhere is paying for it, be it subscription, donations, micro-transactions, or even just plain old advertisements. The trick is to convince the players that it isn't them who is footing the bill - but in the end, it always is. Don't think that because GW did it for free that it is an option for all online games. Last I checked, GW released three expansions and then decided to try a different approach.
On a side note, are the Monster Hunter PS2 servers still running? Because I thought that in the US, both the MH and Outbreak servers were closed eventually.
AndresON777
shooting blanks
They'd be crazy to introduce those prices in America.
digita1alchemy
Member
I've been doing this with Phantasy Star Universe on 360 which is on dedicated servers as well, so I don't see what the big deal is. The issue with PSU is that the support Sega has given the game on the non-Japanese servers has really been sub-par, and not worth $10 a month. If Capcom supports this game pretty well I don't see the problem.
MisterHero
Super Member
I'd probably pay that much for Monster Hunter 3, but almost not for Monster Hunter G.
It also depends on the service too
It also depends on the service too
BishopLamont
Banned
:lol Exactly.Jaded Alyx said:
All these whiners have no idea what MH is.