Support NeoGAF

[whalleywhat]

i think frank has a really interesting take on this

Yeah, I'm sure Nintendo will highlight Rondo of Blood or Ogre Battle 64 or something. Really get the conversation going.

Why would any gamer be excited that people are going to be talking about Super Mario World again? "V. hyped about Nintendo's social media strategy. Looking forward to that monthly hashtag."

 

[Cess007]

i think frank has a really interesting take on this

Is he seriously suggesting that giving the consumer/player too much value is killing the industy? The hell??

 

[LabouredSubterfuge]

i think frank has a really interesting take on this

I wonder if he had a gun to his head when he wrote this.

 

[khaaan]

The only thing I agree with is that if they are updating games to include online functionality then it makes a little sense because at least for that one month you know everyone has access to that one game and don't have to deal with long wait times to match up with a multiplayer partner.That being said, letting people keep access to the game doesn't mean less eyes on the new game of the month.

 

[Chindogg]

I think that is bull though, because the whole "focusing on one game" a month thing with some sort of community banding together to play an old game hasn't been happening with the other services. Day of the Tentacle is out for PS+ for free, that is millions of people getting to play an old game right now.. for free. Where are the memes?

Because as he said, consumers aren't actually playing the game. They're just adding it to their disposable collection as yet another game that they own among the hundreds that they never play for longer than an hour.

Look at your Steam games list. I know I have something like 600 games. That's absurd when you think about it. How many have I played? Maybe 60? Yet because I get them so cheap I pick em up and maybe play them once. That's a race to the bottom that basically makes games completely worthless. It's what drives people to avoid paying full price for a game at launch full knowing that in 3 months they'll get it for $20. They'll play it for a day then toss it into the pile of forgotten software.

In the long run, this basically kills modern gaming. You'll see a couple games a year from a publisher where the value holds for maybe a month. We're already seeing it with studios closing and games being cancelled. Scalebound being the most recent big profile game to fall to this. Sure indies will pick up the slack because the barrier of entry is practically nonexistent anymore, but 95% of those games are a dime a dozen that you collect and once again throw into the pile of uselessness. That's not how you promote a healthy industry, that's how you kill it.

Is he seriously suggesting that giving the consumer/player too much value is killing the industy? The hell??

Because your opinion of "value" is that games should be dirt cheap and if they're older than a few weeks they should have a steep discount. You aren't valuing those games, you're just hoarding them into an unplayed collection then complaining when other companies don't give you the ability to just take their products for free as not having "value" or "anti-consumer."

 

[gypsygib]

1 20 years old game a month, they're aiming high for the value proposition

and it's only for roughly 30 days.

Nintendo gives a new definition to greedy game company.

 

[Audioboxer]

I think Netflix should release one show a month and then make you buy it so you can savor it and have people talk about them instead of devaluating the medium by having so many shows and movies!

What a dumb argument.

I know. Imagine a world where everyone plays the same genre of games, and there's no need for a little bit of diversity in choice. Also imagine a world where people never have a busy month where they have little time to game, and never need to think about playing a monthly sub game 3~6 weeks late.

Sure we all have backlogs of varying size, but that's more a problem with consumerism and hoarding. Not everyone is as bad as everyone else with backlogs. A lot of people do pace themselves well.

Because as he said, consumers aren't actually playing the game. They're just adding it to their disposable collection as yet another game that they own among the hundreds that they never play for longer than an hour.

Look at your Steam games list. I know I have something like 600 games. That's absurd when you think about it. How many have I played? Maybe 60? Yet because I get them so cheap I pick em up and maybe play them once. That's a race to the bottom that basically makes games completely worthless. It's what drives people to avoid paying full price for a game at launch full knowing that in 3 months they'll get it for $20. They'll play it for a day then toss it into the pile of forgotten software.

In the long run, this basically kills modern gaming. You'll see a couple games a year from a publisher where the value holds for maybe a month. We're already seeing it with studios closing and games being cancelled. Scalebound being the most recent big profile game to fall to this. Sure indies will pick up the slack because the barrier of entry is practically nonexistent anymore, but 95% of those games are a dime a dozen that you collect and once again throw into the pile of uselessness. That's not how you promote a healthy industry, that's how you kill it.



Because your opinion of "value" is that games should be dirt cheap and if they're older than a few weeks they should have a steep discount. You aren't valuing those games, you're just hoarding them into an unplayed collection then complaining when other companies don't give you the ability to just take their products for free as not having "value" or "anti-consumer."

Have you actually just tried to "victim blame" consumers/gamers for Scalebound getting canned? Seriously?

The terrible business decisions up top in these companies because "lol we so desperate for COD money for our shareholderz" has nothing to do with gamers. If anyone kills gaming at times it's nickel and dime publishers who the gamers turn on and tell them to fuck off. Sadly this can lead them to canning IP, or burying it, but gamers ain't to blame for that.

 

[BadWolf]

i think frank has a really interesting take on this

Frank sucks.

 

[Apathy]

If Reggie is serious when they say they "read the message boards" then hopefully this backlash will result in a different outcome.

It's very evident people aren't happy about this.

lol the only place they read is /nintendo where no matter where this is the usual response to everything Nintendo does is

 

[Chindogg]

Have you actually just tried to "victim blame" consumers/gamers for Scalebound getting canned? Seriously?

Did you really use the term 'victim blaming?' Are these companies somehow abusing you because they don't shower you with free shit? Come on man. That's absurd.

 

[Audioboxer]

Did you really use the term 'victim blaming?' Are these companies somehow abusing you because they don't shower you with free shit? Come on man. That's absurd.

Your remark was absurd, so I thought it fitting to reply with an equally as absurd comment!

I'm sure PS+ backlogs caused Scalebound to be cancelled. Wish MS had just told us that was the reason!

 

[DeuceGamer]

No, cause they're still rentals instead of actually being able to keep the games.

Isn't a rental service what a lot of people were wanting? Sure they could increase the games but I thought people were wanting a rental service.

 

[boiled goose]

Because as he said, consumers aren't actually playing the game. They're just adding it to their disposable collection as yet another game that they own among the hundreds that they never play for longer than an hour.

Look at your Steam games list. I know I have something like 600 games. That's absurd when you think about it. How many have I played? Maybe 60? Yet because I get them so cheap I pick em up and maybe play them once. That's a race to the bottom that basically makes games completely worthless. It's what drives people to avoid paying full price for a game at launch full knowing that in 3 months they'll get it for $20. They'll play it for a day then toss it into the pile of forgotten software.

In the long run, this basically kills modern gaming. You'll see a couple games a year from a publisher where the value holds for maybe a month. We're already seeing it with studios closing and games being cancelled. Scalebound being the most recent big profile game to fall to this. Sure indies will pick up the slack because the barrier of entry is practically nonexistent anymore, but 95% of those games are a dime a dozen that you collect and once again throw into the pile of uselessness. That's not how you promote a healthy industry, that's how you kill it.

Because your opinion of "value" is that games should be dirt cheap and if they're older than a few weeks they should have a steep discount. You aren't valuing those games, you're just hoarding them into an unplayed collection then complaining when other companies don't give you the ability to just take their products for free as not having "value" or "anti-consumer."

I'm sorry, but this makes very little sense.

 

[Platy]

They should be paying us to use our phones for chat in 2017.

So, something like -20 a year sounds fair.

We are paying for server maintenance and VC trials.

1/3 of what PSN+ gives is a fair amount... specialy most of those VC games can be easily beaten in a month.

 

[BadWolf]

Did you really use the term 'victim blaming?' Are these companies somehow abusing you because they don't shower you with free shit? Come on man. That's absurd.

Something that was free before becomes a paid service. Is it wrong for consumers to expect something extra in return?

 

[CSX]

With this along with that app for voice chat, I really hope Nintendo won't be asking for the same subscription prices as PS+ and Live.

 

[Swiggins]

When PS4 launched, what did they offer in the first month of PS+? Actually, what did Xbox Live for Xbox One offer as well? I'm curious to know if they also had a gestation period where nothing was offered until there were actual "games" available to offer.

The first PS+ games offered on PS4 were Resogun and Contrast.

 

[AcademicSaucer]

i think frank has a really interesting take on this

 

[FinaruDensetsu]

People will pay the sub for the online. The free games won't really matter.

Also ps plus and Xbox live give more games but they are hardly ever that good. One good game from the nes/snes library will beat quantity.

loooool

You're serious?!?!

LOOOOOOLLL

 

[T_V_H]

Games that are well received and popular retain their value in the market. If a game isn't selling the next logical step would be to discount that said game. Discounts and cheaper games are not driving the industry to the ground, it's more complicated than that.

 

[WhiteRabbitEXE]

Isn't a rental service what a lot of people were wanting? Sure they could increase the games but I thought people were wanting a rental service.

Literally no one wanted this, ever.

The popular request was something like EA Vault, where you have access to a bunch of games with a subscription fee, and you keep access as long as you're a subscriber. Not one or two for literally a month. After that people wanted something like PSN+ and GWG where you get free monthly games, but again, keep them the duration of the subscription (or in the case of 360 games, permanently).

And NO ONE wanted JUST NES and SNES.

 

[MUnited83]

i think frank has a really interesting take on this

Those fucking mental gymnastics.

Did you really use the term 'victim blaming?' Are these companies somehow abusing you because they don't shower you with free shit? Come on man. That's absurd.

Free? It's a motherfucking paid service!
Also your analysis of what "killed" Scalebound is fucking ridiculous. You make absolutely no logical sense whatsoever.

 

[Ashe Nei]

i think frank has a really interesting take on this

That's like saying that is good that a console has fewer games in general (better the fewer they are) so the community plays the same games and share their impressions at the same moment and doesn't devalue said games because you have fewer so you make the most of each of them.

He doesn't seem to take into account people have different tastes, variety of library, value of the service (which you pay for apparently), etc...

 

[Apathy]

Those fucking mental gymnastics.

so many gold medals being out at the mental olympics today

 

[Chindogg]

Games that are well received and popular retain their value in the market. If a game isn't selling the next logical step would be to discount that said game. Discounts and cheaper games are not driving the industry to the ground, it's more complicated than that.

Pokemon continues to sell incredibly well, even older generations, yet consistently people bitch about how the games aren't cheaper.

 

[anothertech]

Interesting take on free monthly games.

Definitely will avoid for the time being.

 

[WhiteRabbitEXE]

People will pay the sub for the online. The free games won't really matter.

Also ps plus and Xbox live give more games but they are hardly ever that good. One good game from the nes/snes library will beat quantity.

One month of Super Mario World or any other game literally everyone on this site owns at least twice beats years of PSN+ and GWG games? WTF lol.

Nah. Sunset Overdrive alone beats the entire lifetime of the Switch in one month trials of 20-30+ year old games.

 

[jax]

Thankfully we have 6 months or so of testing the waters for free to see if it will be worth the price.

 

[Audioboxer]

Games that are well received and popular retain their value in the market. If a game isn't selling the next logical step would be to discount that said game. Discounts and cheaper games are not driving the industry to the ground, it's more complicated than that.

We live in a "free market". Many people will simply decide what they want to pay and that is that. You can try to artificially limit or force them, but often that will just result in no sale. There are a million times more games out there than there is time in any of our lives to play them all. So the most important thing to do is work hard and with passion and put out as objectively good work as you can. With what sales you make at any given price, overall you should make a living.

When people start going on these weird tangents about games preservation and artificially held prices it sounds like a mix between the CEO of Activision, Gamestop and apparently Nintendo, have a baby. Up next I guess we will be hearing the arguments of the second hand market killing the industry... It's always something killing the industry other than the dumbasses making terrible business decisions or being greedy. I guess it is always easier to blame the hard working consumers who spend chunks of their wage packets on gaming for stuff like Scalebound getting canned...

 

[MUnited83]

People will pay the sub for the online. The free games won't really matter.

Also ps plus and Xbox live give more games but they are hardly ever that good. One good game from the nes/snes library will beat quantity.

Nobody is going to fuckig subscribe to this shit when there are literally no fucking third party online games whatsoever. Not to mention that PS+ have great games several times already. This shitty garbage service won't ever match then with how currently works. The whole library of this thing is one game per month. It literally only has one game available forever. There is no value in this. There is no NES/SNES game in existence that is worth more to own for 30 days than the entire library ever given bybPS+ and XBL in the life of those services. Not.a.single.one.

 

[JaseMath]

I don't give a shit about any of the premium features of the Nintendo online service, so none of this really affects me. The only standout benefit is discounts and that's only because Nintendo is so stingy with their prices. Their e-shop "sales" are often a joke.

 

[boskee]

This is such a trainwreck. I am now considering cancelling my preorder of the Switch, because Nintendo seems to be bent on making me regret becoming an early adopter.

One month rental of obsolete games as the incentive to subscribe feels like a final slap in the face, and yet I'm sure we will hear more of their horrendous ideas in the coming days.

Nintendo doesn't get it and if they didn't have nostalgia going for them, I wouldn't think twice before saying fuck Konami and Nintendo.

 

[Bruce Springsteen]

i think frank has a really interesting take on this

Felt like I was reading a parody account

 

[_Ryo_]

Only get to play the game for that month. Service is useless.

 

[boredandlazy]

so many gold medals being out at the mental olympics today

This is my first Nintendo console announcement/launch on GAF and it's been thoroughly entertaining.

 

[antennaehead]

i think frank has a really interesting take on this

This is actually neat, and I could agree with that - with whole community playing one free game together for a month and talking about it, tweeting etc.

That's it, if (if) Nintendo would provide this on top of the normal free games PS+ style. Without it, it just makes Nintendo paid online not as valuable as its competitors, and now the whole community will laugh and/or rage about it. But hey, people sure are tweeting and making memes now.

 

[hemo memo]

For 1 month..

Honestly this whole reveal remind me of Xbox One first DRM reveal.

 

[CanUKlehead]

For 1 month..

Honestly this whole reveal remind me of Xbox One first DRM reveal.

WHOOOOOOOOOOOAH!!!

But thinking on it, yeah maybe.

 

[GarthVaderUK]

One NES or SNES game trial per month is downright insulting compared to what Sony and MS have offered on their subscription services over the last few years:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Games_with_Gold_games
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Instant_Game_Collection_games_(PAL_region)

At least throw GameCube games or something on there you cheap bastards.

 

[Maxim726X]

For 1 month..

Honestly this whole reveal remind me of Xbox One first DRM reveal.

I'm getting the same vibe here.

And it's not like this console is going to have wide appeal like a MS console would... And it still had a miserable launch. You could argue it never recovered.

Nothing that dramatic here, but could be death by a thousand cuts.

 

[Audioboxer]

For 1 month..

Honestly this whole reveal remind me of Xbox One first DRM reveal.

I mean objectively it is absolutely nowhere near as bad as that. However expectations were much higher than this for Nintendo given we thought they'd learn a lesson from the Wii U. They don't necessarily have the muscle to out Sony Sony, or MS MS. However basic decisions that would go a long way to appeasing the core gamers are getting fumbled.

I honestly think very few people called them announcing paid online. Given how much work most of us knew they'd be needing to put into their online Network and MP I'd guess many thought paid next time around, and this would be their PS3 generation. Or if paid this time they'd be being bullish about the rather solid online network planned for launch, and with the likes of these SNES and NES games mirroring exactly what Sony and MS do. Play as long as you're subbed. Not this car crash of an online announcement with 30 day trials and apparent mobile apps needed for online chat and what not.

 

[ThanksVision]

Honestly take away the rental time limit and I wouldn't be that mad at all. It's not like I even touch 90% of the games I get on PS+, I can't lie.

 

[Formless]

I will hold judgment. We don't know the price and everything that will or won't be in there.


I've also never paid for online play and have not been impressed when living with people with XBL or PS Plus. It sucks but I guess like everyone else, I will shell it out if I like the online play enough.

Ugh.

 

[Ninja Scooter]

This is actually neat, and I could agree with that - with whole community playing one free game together for a month and talking about it, tweeting etc.

That's it, if (if) Nintendo would provide this on top of the normal free games PS+ style. Without it, it just makes Nintendo paid online not as valuable as its competitors, and now the whole community will laugh and/or rage about it. But hey, people sure are tweeting and making memes now.

You can do this anyway. People on GAF do it all the time (there is a thread of people playing the final fantasy games together active right now). Restricting content is not neccesarily to achieve this kind of community interaction. That kind of thing happens best organically, not through some masked attempt at nickle and diming your audience. He makes the comparisons to book clubs himself, do book clubs exist because people only have access to one book at a time? Or is it because like minded people get together to discuss a book they enjoy? His entire premise is absurd and embarrassing.

 

[BlastProcessing]

I can't believe this has to be said... But just in case it does:

In no way is restricting choice a positive thing. His take is fucking bullshit, full on.

'If you were only allowed to read one book a month, it would encourage discussion and deeper understanding!'

That's literally what his argument is. It's Stockholm Syndrome at its worst.

Allowed? I don't think that is the right word here.

As someone who has worked in education and in game design, restricting choice can absolutely be a positive and necessary thing.

 

[Permanently A]

Isn't a rental service what a lot of people were wanting? Sure they could increase the games but I thought people were wanting a rental service.

Who wanted a paid rental service for NES and SNES games? What?

 

[Exploratory]

Fair enough. I just don't get ridiculing an entire service, one we still don't have a lot of info over, because of how the "extras" are being handled. I'm not saying it's awesome, but it's also early days yet.

lol who's fault is that?! Nintendo will never change I swear.

 

[Audioboxer]

Allowed? I don't think that is the right word here.

As someone who has worked in education and in game design, restricting choice can absolutely be a positive and necessary thing.

In game design, sure. Part of the battle of making a game is all about restrictions in order to create a coherent game from A to Z. Not to mention one where the gamer isn't going to break things or not know what they are doing.

We're not discussing that though. We're talking about the market which is massive and insanely varied. All different gamers spending different amounts, playing different things and wanting different things. If you spend too much time trying to restrict and manage that you'll bite off more than you can chew and your products and/or services probably suffer.

Gamers largely accept a restriction of monthly games being you need to be subbed, although some people moaned at that. However the majority are clearly declining that Nintendos proposal of you can only play till the month ends is anywhere near as good as the other two providers. Or I should say 3 if we include EA. Yes, even EA are out-consumering Nintendo.

 

[Ninja Scooter]

Fair enough. I just don't get ridiculing an entire service, one we still don't have a lot of info over, because of how the "extras" are being handled. I'm not saying it's awesome, but it's also early days yet.

Early days? The thing launches in a month and a half and they are already taking preorders. People have every right to be skeptical and critical over what was and wasn't shown/announced. Nintendo doesn't deserve the benefit of the doubt here, not when it comes to an online service.

 

[JaseMath]

Guys! Maybe Nintendo will extend a discount to the legacy title they offer up for that given month. But the kicker is that it's only to members!

VALUE