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.
It's a balance to be sure, if you over restrict then that's a problem, but no restrictions can create issues as well. A user base is something that needs to be grown and cultivated and I don't think it's strange to think that a gaming company would sometimes rely on game design philosophy to do that.
I think the core issue on this will be pricing, not the 1 month limit.
You're not wrong, but I more so meant if at this Switch unveil they had been humble and honest about the work and effort they needed to do for online and how important it was going to be. You know, appear to give a shit and set out a plan. Then some fledgeling steps for launch like some basic voice chat (on the fucking console OS) and okay, a paid service to help them, but at least one with games on par with XBL/PSN+. I said in another topic we have to accept they don't have the 3rd party library to draw on like Sony/MS, so okay lets accept SNES/NES for now, but then they uppercut us with this shitty 30 day trials nonsense...
At that point, people would cut them a bit of slack and expect the next 6/12/18 months to be iterative, improvement following improvement. Kind of like how Sony had to work to keep plugging all the major differences between PSN and Live.
But no, Nintendo
i think frank has a really interesting take on this
What makes that gif even funnier is that someone on twitter said that the joy cons with the hd rumble felt like jerking someone off. That mini game is way too accurate
So what you're saying is Nintendo should apply this tech to teledildonics.What makes that gif even funnier is that someone on twitter said that the joy cons with the hd rumble felt like jerking someone off. That mini game is way too accurate
Having to be subbed is a restriction though, as it means that Sony and MS can foot the bill for the games they add to the PSN+ or XBLG roster. I think we should all remember Sony and Microsoft pay the developers. Sure they're not going to be getting the value equivalent of 20m downloads at the games RRP. However there's a coin to flip as to whether the dev would have made the amount Sony or MS are going to lump sum pay them by selling the game via normal channels from day 1. It's not like these devs get forced to put their games up either, I'm sure MS/Sony approach them or them Sony/MS. Basically, people get paid for their work, let us stop pretending this is all some charity case.
The market would be in a much worse off position if we were simply stuck paying for MP with no additional benefit. It could have been that way if such restrictions some may be calling for were the predominant accepted by consumers. Heck MS would probably have loved if consumers accepted their DRM restrictions. The thing is though in a "free market" usually healthy restrictions win out because on average consumers won't accept getting bent over and fucked stupid.
I hope it's cheap compared to the other ones, i don't want to pay a lot just to play splatoon 2 and Mk8 Deluxe online :/. I only subbed to PSN+ once and it was to play Bloodborne online, i hate the whole subscription to play online.
Calling it now. Month 1) mario brothers with online co-op
I'm glad that with this subscription we get free games, free online play, and free discounts. What an incredible deal!
We're going to have to pay $40-60 a year just to be able to trade pokemon. That sounds so insane.
Brb, reinstating pre-order.
So what you're saying is Nintendo should apply this tech to teledildonics.
10/10 Nintendo wins the generation. I take back all my smug criticism.
Sure.
I want to make it clear, I am not saying that all restrictions are good and I think everyone should be able to decide on their own what they find acceptable. I was just pushing back against the idea that all restrictions are all inherently bad. In this case, the idea of intentionally funneling users towards specific games at specific times can have merit.
Nintendo putting their effort where it matters
If you gave people the games, they would still be funneled when the games get put up because they'll want to try their new games.
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.
Pokemon continues to sell incredibly well, even older generations, yet consistently people bitch about how the games aren't cheaper.
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."
IDK about you guys, but 1 month is plenty of time to go through any NES/SNES game and be done with it.
Sure it's not the best, but it's manageable.
So after getting thoroughly fucked by that controller price, you can jerk someone off ? Sounds like a party to me.
Possibly, but Cifaldi's other point (and one I absolutely agree with as an indie dev) is that the value of games is being rapidly decreased to unsustainable levels. So scarcity could help the market in general.
So after getting thoroughly fucked by that controller price, you can jerk someone off ? Sounds like a party to me.
I feel like many of the defenders are vastly overestimating the amount of time they'd spend playing old NES games. Sure, maybe you'll play it for a few minutes, but are people really going to be excited about playing Soccer for longer than five minutes?
I remember how, in the long run, selling used games would kill the games industry.
And how, in the long run, piracy would kill the games industry.
And how, in the long run, AAA gaming would kill the games industry.
And how, as the years pass, so many god damn things are said to be killing the games industry.
And yet it grows every god damn year. It shifts, turns, mutates, and grows.
A plethora of games at little cost to the consumer will do as much to kill the games industry as netflix did to kill the film industry. What did netflix kill? Oh, that's right, outdated business models. The industry that it depends on remains quite god damn healthy.
Until concrete evidence is presented that the games industry is being actively harmed by lower prices, please, stop living in fear that it is dying. Far more likely that it is killing outdated business models, like, yknow, the wiiu. And good riddance to that.
i think frank has a really interesting take on this
I can see where you are coming from and I don't want come off as harsh but the sheer amount of games that are available means that not everyone gets a decent piece of the pie. I firmly believe that if a game is truly special it can succeed without pricing it to unsustainable levels. I can only speak for myself but scarcity would mean I would spend less. If a good game isn't selling it's because the market does not see the value or are uninformed.
People expect cheaper prices, especially on the pc where the competition is fierce. Things have to be budgeted acordingly.
It isn't a terrible idea and if the service is priced accordingly it might catch on. Currently the other companies give you a couple of older games and cover their online for ~$5 a month ~$60 a year. Devaluing those titles or not doesn't reduce the perceived value to the consumer.
So Nintendo is offering a paid online service. Because MS and Sony do too. Except Nintendo has to do things in a uniquely Nintendo way.
So....
- You need a Smartphone app to use voice chat.
- You get to play a different free NES/SNES VC game with online multiplayer every month when you're subscribed but you don't get to even keep it.
- You're shit out of luck at the launch of the paid service if you're not in the USA, Canada, or Mexico.
Really robust feature set. Very impressed with Nintendo moving forward with this clearly well thought out and very well prepared service. I think they're going to knock it out of the park.
So Nintendo is offering a paid online service. Because MS and Sony do too. Except Nintendo has to do things in a uniquely Nintendo way.
So....
- You need a Smartphone app to use voice chat.
- You get to play a different free NES/SNES VC game with online multiplayer every month when you're subscribed but you don't get to even keep it.
- You're shit out of luck at the launch of the paid service if you're not in the USA, Canada, or Mexico.
Really robust feature set. Very impressed with Nintendo moving forward with this clearly well thought out and very well prepared service. I think they're going to knock it out of the park.
So Nintendo is offering a paid online service. Because MS and Sony do too. Except Nintendo has to do things in a uniquely Nintendo way.
So....
- You need a Smartphone app to use voice chat.
- You get to play a different free NES/SNES VC game with online multiplayer every month when you're subscribed but you don't get to even keep it.
- You're shit out of luck at the launch of the paid service if you're not in the USA, Canada, or Mexico.
Really robust feature set. Very impressed with Nintendo moving forward with this clearly well thought out and very well prepared service. I think they're going to knock it out of the park.
It isn't a terrible idea and if the service is priced accordingly it might catch on. Currently the other companies give you a couple of older games and cover their online for ~$5 a month ~$60 a year. Devaluing those titles or not doesn't reduce the perceived value to the consumer.
Wait, what is this? Admittedly I've spent chunks of today catching up as I was asleep when it all happened live, but is their online service only rolling out in stages or something? lol
I mean is the whole of Europe absent or something?
I don't know, but the only place you can get official English information on the online service is NoA's Switch page, and it has that footnote disclaimer. The Europe site just says the paid service will launch "autumn 2017". There just isn't much information about this at all. Considering how they're not ready to even launch a paid service until later this year, it reasons that their infrastructure details might not be fixed either so maybe even Nintendo doesn't know.
I'm going to assume everyone is getting MP day 1 because it'll fall under the "free trial". I assume the rollouts must be to do with whenever the app is made for your region lol. Still, what a mess. Sounds like the console needs some more months in the cooker. It can't really wait till the fall with the Scorpio coming.