-
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.
Nintendo Switch having a online paywall killed my interest in Nintendo games that have online
- Thread starter KAL2006
- Start date
Zog
Banned
Oh so we are looking at the actual cost of things? In that case a digital download does not cost Nintendo $60.
Last edited:
Zog
Banned
Not true, people can just stop subscribing at any time.
Zog
Banned
Yeah it would have been nice if people would have put a stop to the nonsense at
Last edited:
Thanks.
Bragr
Banned
That's a fallacy and nonsensical, subscriptions are used to fund operating costs around the online infrastructure because of the demands and divisions needed to sustain it, and cultivate possible profits, which is substantial. With how the industry and digital marketplaces are developing, you would be a complete fool to not breed subscription models around your brand. Do I want it to be free? of course, I want many DLC's to be free too, but I'm not 12 years old anymore.
Zog
Banned
Of course not, sorry I should have mentioned them too.
Zog
Banned
Damn all those 12 year olds on Steam.
Zog
Banned
Explain it then fella.
#Phonepunk#
Banned
man that is cool you dont have to buy it
just kinda silly that every system has a paywall and people have a problem with Nintendo doing it for some reason
i know the games on it are only for a few systems but i dunno you don't have to buy it. if you do you get free NES and SNES and online connectivity in every Switch game. Playstation charges ~$100 per year, while Nintendo's is $20. that is less than one hour's worth of work for me. i will gladly play $20 to play Tetris 99 any time i want, as well as most of the best NES and SNES classics.
i mean they just dropped Donkey Kong Country. it is absolutely free if you already subscribe to the service. it only gains in value as time goes on. this is not the time to be making this argument. lol
it is funny Nintendo charges the least for their service yet people complain about it the most.
just kinda silly that every system has a paywall and people have a problem with Nintendo doing it for some reason
i know the games on it are only for a few systems but i dunno you don't have to buy it. if you do you get free NES and SNES and online connectivity in every Switch game. Playstation charges ~$100 per year, while Nintendo's is $20. that is less than one hour's worth of work for me. i will gladly play $20 to play Tetris 99 any time i want, as well as most of the best NES and SNES classics.
i mean they just dropped Donkey Kong Country. it is absolutely free if you already subscribe to the service. it only gains in value as time goes on. this is not the time to be making this argument. lol
it doesn't matter what it "costs" in terms of resources spent, it matters what the market price is. companies do not do things in order to be the most fair to everyone involved, they do them in order to gain the upper hand in a market. the cost is not set by how much is spent to produce, it is set by a market. this is a market with 3 competitors which all charge for online service. if a market has company A charging 100 per year and company B charging 60 per year then opting in for 20 does not seem unreasonable.
it is funny Nintendo charges the least for their service yet people complain about it the most.
Last edited:
Zog
Banned
I really just can't stand the argument 'it's only $20, that's practically free and not worth complaining about'.
Well, there are alot of things less than $20 that people will complain about if they aren't good, like food for example. So I bought a $9 fan from Wal Mart and it didn't work properly so I took it back. I am expecting the 'it's only $9, that's practically free and not worth returning defense.
Well, there are alot of things less than $20 that people will complain about if they aren't good, like food for example. So I bought a $9 fan from Wal Mart and it didn't work properly so I took it back. I am expecting the 'it's only $9, that's practically free and not worth returning defense.
Last edited:
Bragr
Banned
Nintendo, Sony, Microsoft own rights to anything that runs on their consoles, and it's in their best interest to support and cultivate an online infrastructure. On PC, no company owns any such things. A paywall for online play on Steam would drive players elsewhere, and many companies would not allow their games on their platforms in fear of alienating gamers and hurting their online communities, as paid online play on PC would be considered pure evil. If Steam took money for online play, they would be responsible for the online availability of hundreds of games which could turn into a nightmare and damage their reputation if something went wrong.
However, PC subscriptions are gaining traction, and paid streaming services is the future of PC gaming as well as consoles. But paid online play for consoles will stick around until that becomes the norm because it's too profitable, and it helps to fund their online divisions.
Nintendo actually almost seemed hesitant for a while to charge for online. Instead of doubling the price and offering monthly games, they try to keep it low. But not having a fee for console online availability would be like throwing money out the window.
Zog
Banned
Steam could charge for online play, they just don't. They are the biggest platform on PC.
The fact is online play was free by both Sony and Nintendo until they saw Microsoft get away with it. They don't charge for online play because they have to, it's because gamers told them it was ok by letting Microsoft get away with it. It's not about '12 year olds wanting everything for free', it's about knowing that online play could be, has been and should be free for using the platform.
Bragr
Banned
No, Steam would lose a massive amount of their audience if they charged, it would not be accepted by PC gamers. If Steam charged, Epic would suddenly gain millions more users and Steam would be viewed as a shill by PC players. On consoles, you have no choice to pay for services, on PC you do. It's completely different situations in play here and completely different ecosystems.
Sony wanted to copy Xbox Live because it was better than their service, and once they did charge and learned from Xbox Live their service got better. If you ever played Halo 3 on Xbox Live, you know what I am talking about, PS3's online was viewed poorly by many. Nintendo barely does online, but even the mediocre offer on Switch is better than any online infrastructure they ever had before.
Zog
Banned
It sounds like you are saying: 'On PC, gamers would not allow them to charge for online play but on console gamers have no choice'.
1. Gamers had a choice before this generation, they still chose to pay for Xbox Live and that is the ONLY reason Sony and Nintendo started charging.
2. Gamers can always just refuse to subscribe at anytime and if enough do it, then changes will be made.
Bragr
Banned
I'm saying, on PC, online play is more complicated with different infrastructures, player alternatives, and a different culture around online play.
On consoles, the producers of the systems, Nintendo, Sony, Microsoft, own the platforms and are dependent on offering online services, and there are no online alternatives for games released on said consoles.
Gamers liked Xbox Live because it was better, Microsoft put together a better package because it was a paid package. And Sony's and Nintendo's offerings also became better when it became paid offerings.
I mean, you also have a choice to stop paying for electricity and see where that gets you. Online infrastructure is vastly different now than before, there are more demands and needs than ever of what an online service is and how it needs to perform. This is not 2005, the big 3 are using a lot of money and time on their online services, people are not gonna stop paying and hope everything gonna become free.
And you are also not looking at the value here, each model on each system offers plenty of perks. On Xbox and PS4, you get free games to easily cover the yearly subscription. On Switch, it's not that many offers, but it's enough to warrant 20 dollars for a full year. I have no problem paying for it, and I think most share my contentment with the perks offered alongside the subscriptions.
Rockondevil
Member
I don’t play enough to justify getting the online. There are a couple of games I haven’t purchased because of that. I guess there’d be other people like me too so while they might make money off the online they’ll definitely lose some on sales.
Mario Maker is one good example.
Mario Maker is one good example.
Zog
Banned
Well if you equate online play with electricity then I can see why they have you hooked.
MagnesG
Banned
You're not obligated to pay for it you know, that's cool more power to you.
But bitching on others for subscribing the service is just dumb. For $2 a month I got to play online (played frequently), play Tetris 99 and get those dripfeed legacy games to play with once in a while, even if most of them sucks. It's more than enough for others, justifiably.
So fuck off with the higher ground bullshit.
But bitching on others for subscribing the service is just dumb. For $2 a month I got to play online (played frequently), play Tetris 99 and get those dripfeed legacy games to play with once in a while, even if most of them sucks. It's more than enough for others, justifiably.
So fuck off with the higher ground bullshit.
Hudo
Member
I admit that I actually paid for a while for Super Mario Maker 2. But generally, I don't pay for online services for any console. That practice is bullshit and needs to go away, IMHO. Online play should be free on every platform, together with cloud saves. I don't mind if manufacturers offer an optional subscription based service like game pass or similar. But basic stuff should be free.
Strider Highwind
Banned
It initially bothered me but then I realized I don't even really play multiplayer games on my Switch lol...hell I really don't play them on my ps4 pro..I barely play MP games anymore and when I do I prefer them on my Xbox One X or my PC. But my switch is literally my Indie/RPG console of choice so I don't even notice it anymore.
Strider Highwind
Banned
I agree. I started my multiplayer gaming way back on things like the MSN Gaming Zone as a kid and the services that existed back then for games like Q3Arena and such...I miss those days where extra money out my wallet determined whether or not I got to experience half of the game.
Hudo
Member
I remember explicitly buying the PS3 because Sony's basic online features were free. But they caved... and I can't really fault them for that because Microsoft were making quite a lot of money and proved that people were willing to pay, so if I had been Sony's CEO, I would've gone the same way. But from a consumer point of view, this whole development is incredibly disappointing.
I also don't like the development, on both consoles and PC (via Steam), that games are being gated behind mandatory accounts. I remember a time where the big advantage of a console was that you could put in the game and just play. No account bullshit, no download of a 100GB patch, no ads that tell you to buy the DLC.
But I get it. This is all "old man yells at cloud"-kind of talk... so yeah...
Using the family plan or whatever it's called you're paying like €8 for a year. I mean, I don't like the principle of paying for online gaming but the money itself shouldn't be an issue. To me it's worth it for some weekly Mario Kart 8 and Tetris 99.
If it isn't for you, then hey, plenty of other games out there, it's no big loss. I used to subscribe to Microsoft's online service like 10 years ago, until I noticed I barely used it and cancelled it. No big deal, it's just videogames.
If it isn't for you, then hey, plenty of other games out there, it's no big loss. I used to subscribe to Microsoft's online service like 10 years ago, until I noticed I barely used it and cancelled it. No big deal, it's just videogames.
Hendrick's
If only my penis was as big as my GamerScore!
You honestly aren't missing much.
Zog
Banned
So hey, will you pay for mine then?
Blond
Banned
What really annoys me about the switch is how the Nvidia shield has more features and better graphics (some games rendering beyond 1080p, some in 4k), HDR support and more multitasking ability than the Nintendo Switch does despite running the exact same hardware.
#Phonepunk#
Banned
Zog
Banned
So not so super cheap after all?
#Phonepunk#
Banned
that's why you pay $60 per year instead of $20.
it is funny to compare this to a service which costs 3 times the price. like no duh if you pay 3 times the price you get more features.
Last edited:
Zog
Banned
You guys have only one argument 'it's cheap guys, quit complaining'. You don't care that the online service sucks, you just say the same thing over and over again trying to shame people into silence.