Jump to content
NEurope

dazzybee

Members
  • Content count

    15,856
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

Posts posted by dazzybee


  1. @Nolan yeah context is missing. When I said I don’t care if anyone’s done it. Not about the information - why would I ask for some information that I didn’t care about. The I don’t care was about the whole point of the discussion in the first place. As in, it doesn’t matter if someone has or hasn’t, it doesn’t change my belief that Nintendo will, and also should, launch their online service mid way through s generation and charge people to play all games. 

    So i was interested in the information. But either way it doesn’t change what Nintendo are doing. 

    If that makes sense.

    • Thanks 1

  2. 6 minutes ago, Happenstance said:

    Dazzybee I’m trying to figure out the best way to say this without seeming insulting but imo a lot of issues when it comes to you can be from your aggressive and dismissive style of posting. I think it’s happened in this thread. I understood a lot of your points but with the way you were putting things it just causes problems that don’t need to be there. It’s not the first time I’ve noticed it and I’m sure I’ve seen others mention it. To me, you were the problem here not Rummy and I think it is something that could be easily rectified.

    I’m not insulted. You have to express yourself. That’s fine. 

    Not your final point though 😂 How you can think that is bizarre other than through loyalty. 

    • Like 1

  3. 1 minute ago, Happenstance said:

    Especially in this place. It’s got better lately but while some of it is just to do with Nintendo doing better, I think some is through the effort of people like Rummy who put a lot of time into trying to sort out the issues this place has had over the years.

    Runny hasn’t been here for months and months and it’s been great. He was about when the place was a disaster. Not all his fault, not blaming, but just saying that he hasn’t been around here while it’s been great. But in my opinion the first time he comes back it drags it back down, completely unnecessaraiky, to the awful wii u days when we lost loads of our best members. 


  4. @rummy on my phone, so can’t quite effectively. So I’ll just post in here. 

    Forst point. I wasn’t dismissing his point. They are two separate, non contradictory (I’m glad at least you’ve admitted this was a false statement you made)  comments. One, genuine curiosity if anyone did. Two, irrespective of everything, I don’t think it matters if a company has or hasn’t done it before. I mean, it’s so simple, so clear, I don’t understand how anyone can have the reaction you had. 

     

    Sedond point. Do you really not see the utter hilarity of condemning me for speaking for other posters, while doing EXACTLY THE SAME THING!!!! Oh boy. The difference being I have evidence in that no one, like in the above, expressed annoyance. There was just a discussion between a few posters. Seemed okay to me. Yet you come in, and speak for the forum And express your dismay at the posts. 

    With this. And your final point. I do think it would be best if you do step down from moderation. Not only have you not been seen in months, the moment you do you’ve completely derailed the thread and soured it,  making bizarrre  accusations.

     


  5. 30 minutes ago, Sheikah said:

     


    You're right, it's a non-argument. Because it's already happened with free to play, subscription-free games like Fortnite. That shows exactly the point I'm making - you don't need to wrap everything up in your subscription plan. And in the case where people will have been playing 18 months and a furore is likely, you definitely don't. It's bad PR for one, and the other point is that it's a legacy game that came before the service and will therefore probably only benefit at the OS level.



    What is difficult to understand about that? I regularly play my Switch and have probably the majority of people on here added, yet when I check my friends online on Switch there's nothing like what I see on my PS4 friends list playing the so called "big" multiplayer games as often. Not even close. I am quite convinced that games like Mario Kart for the vast majority are more casual, occasional experiences and that's why I don't feel the subscription model would be particularly justified, at least in my case. Nintendo also only make so many games, and only a selection of them have good lasting online multiplayer. And then the third party games with multiplayer are usually almost always better suited to the more powerful consoles. And for the record I would not consider Smash among the online games worth the subscription - Smash online has never felt snappy to me and generally not enjoyable to play that way, it's not a patch on local multiplayer.

    Obviously this post is very anecdotal and you will get people saying "well I feel the opposite", but almost every night I boot up my PS4 I can easily find 5-10 N-Europers playing multiplayer games. Nothing like that for me on Switch.

     

    Haha, a case study of one, what a clinical trial. I've had plus for 4 years, played it online a handful of times, I wouldn't profess that that situation is the norm. And people will play smash brothers an incredible amount for years and years, splatoon too, and many many others. When I boot up the switch I have loads of friends playing, 12 people were playing Mario kart last night for example, like most of them do every single week. A few of us have played rocket league over 100 hours each since launch, some over 200 (looking at you JBS), Smash brothers, animal crossing etc will be insane online games. Personal preferences aside, it's a very strange thing to say.

    Any even so, doesn't the fact it's a third of the price as the others justify even further?!


  6. Yeah it's one update behind ps4/xbox by the sounds of it. Not too fussed about that to be honest, I mean, the is meant to have loads of content, so not like it'll be short of content, and something new in a few months will be decent. Though if they can't be trusted then that's another matter...

    Might wait for a bargain....


  7. 8 minutes ago, Sheikah said:

     

    But you knowing it's coming surely doesn't have any bearing on other people, which is why it's odd to see you then say you don't understand other people's viewpoint.

     

    I knew "it" (quotation marks as we don't really know what "it" is) was coming and I still think the idea to reverse an 18 month free online situation in certain games is poor. From a PR situation it's ridiculous, never mind what warning they may have given (poor warning advertising IMO). Mostly though, I don't think paid online is suited to a lot of Nintendo's games. I see Mario Kart as the game you might whip out just once in a while that doesn't feel suited to paying subscriptions. That's just me I know, but I also don't see enough there that would want to make me pay the subscription, unless the other stuff we will get is that good.

     

     

    Well I can only hope that their use of vague language is to give them flexibility in this matter.

    I understand peoples viewpoint, I just don't agree with it. You kept saying it's anti-consumer, no benefit to consumer paying for it. You can say that about everything can't you? It's not better for the consumer to pay for everything, it's better to get everything for free? But it's such a non-argument. 

    I get that people may not know, but they soon will know. Then they make a decision whether they want to or not. And for Nintendos game not suited to online... I mean... I don't know even know where to start with that; so you think people don't play Mario kart other than the odd time? Smash brothers wouldn't be big online game, or splatoon isn't, or arms doesn't have a community... Why are Nintendos online games (never mind 3rd parties) not worthy of paying a subscription compared to others?

    • Like 1

  8. On 20/02/2018 at 1:24 PM, Rummy said:

    Please have some regard for yourself dazzy, I know you're not and I'm not looking to come down on this - but you HAVE to surely see how easily this is justification for a trolling/flamebaiting accusation when two such polar opposite statements are posted not that many hours apart. Don't get me wrong though - I agree with you it WOULD be stupid business sense to split the service into two halves, but it's ALSO imo stupid business sense to suddenly charge for a free service halfway through that I am pretty much 100% confident will get complaints from consumers who will say they did not realise this was going to happen and why did the game they could play for free yesterday suddenly become not free etcetc. I can't say I've got a sensible middle ground solution between both of these stupid ideas either

     

    I don't think any (bar you) thought it was flaimbating or trolling. And they're not even remotely contradictory. One is a genuine questions I asked Shiekah, the other is my opinion on the matter. Whatever the answer to the first, doesn't change my opinion. How is that contradictory? 

    I think for me, because I've known paid online was coming at the moment this thing was formally announced, I don't understand why people see it as an issue. There'll be some people who'll complain - there always is about everything. But ultimately it'll be a small issue, people will get used to it, and next year we'll forget it was any different.

    Ultimately, don't think there is much of a middle ground, paid online is coming. 


  9. 54 minutes ago, Sheikah said:

    The thing is, there's going to be confusion no matter what they do as people will be caught out one way or another. Either they paywall old games and people get caught out (as they inevitably will), or keep some old games free and people may be somewhat confused as to which games need online subscriptions.

    Ah come on, there won't be any confusion at all. Paying online is pretty much standard, and in general subscriptions are standard across software, apps, games all sorts. It's not going to be confusing when Nintendo confirm the exact details of - now you have to pay to play online. People aren't going to be scratching their heads confused at it.

    What would be confusing, is some games you can play with out it, and some you can.

    Your fortnite example, my nephew had their plus stopped; they now think they can't play fortnite anymore. Because, absolutely rightly, logics says if you have to pay to play games online, that includes everything


  10. Just now, Sheikah said:
    1 minute ago, dazzybee said:
    Doesn't it just mean free-to-play games and maybe pokemon bank and such? And free-to-play games free on ps4/xbox?
     

    Who knows apart from Nintendo...

    Yeah, but I mean in general is that the practice? That free-to-play games you don't need online subscription? I don't know, but something in my head is telling me it is


  11. 50 minutes ago, Sheikah said:

    It even says in your very image Ronnie that "most" games will require you to pay to play online, so it's not at all explicit in saying that previously "free" to play online games will now cost money. 

    Also:

    38lkuy.jpg

    "Exceptions may apply". I'm hoping they had enough foresight when they came up with that wording to see that it makes little consumer sense to do this.

    Doesn't it just mean free-to-play games and maybe pokemon bank and such? And free-to-play games free on ps4/xbox?

     


  12. 1 hour ago, Julius Caesar said:

    But, for an existing player base, the introduction of a DLC season pass and the introduction of paid online would largely have the same effects, surely? They’re both additional costs which put a paywall between the already existing player base and the ability to play the game in its most complete form. 

    @dazzybee, I think you’re actually making arguments against your own points - which are perfectly valid - here. Like I said above: I agree that, ideally, it would be a cost across the board for all games and leave it at that, but I think that many contributions to this conversation have shown that that might not be as straightforward as we might want to believe. But to say that “I don't care if no ones ever launched a service half way through”, and then follow that up with “It makes no business sense” seems woefully ironic, considering that the very reason that no-one has launched such a service 18 months beyond the original hardware launch is because it makes no business sense to do so. One of the main reasons that the PS3 nearly caught up to the Xbox 360 in terms of sales last generation is probably because its online service remained free, and I don’t think that a free online service - even if just for a few games - is that perplexing a thing for consumers to get their heads around. Have you seen how well Fortnite is doing on PS4? 

    I think that thinking in such absolute terms when it comes to something we know very little about just sets us up for disappointment, and it wouldn’t be the first time that Nintendo has rewarded early adopters for something that was changed not so long after. Remember the 3DS Ambassador Program? I hardly see anyone getting up in arms about that being a thing, and yet that’s one of many instances that Nintendo has put its consumers first. 

    Where you see clumsiness, I see yet another smart PR move for a company in the midst of its greatest comeback. How many parents buying Splatoon 2 to give their children for Christmas were readily aware that a paid online subscription service was coming the Switch’s way? How many people in countries who play this game online in developing countries are aware that the service is even coming?

    I fail to see how it’s a bad decision in nearly every way for Nintendo, but hey, you’re entitled to your own opinion. I just hope that you factor in that not everyone is in the same financial situation that you are, or has access to the same information that you have, when you express such bold and absolute opinions. 

    And I can’t wait for news on VC either. I feel like that’s certainly something which would be best positioned to be present at E3, especially if they’re thinking about changing how it’s set up.

    No it's not the same, because there won't be a split between a base version and a more complete version; EVERYONE will have to pay to play online.

    As for the rest of what you say, it's kind of ridiculous, you have absolutely;ey no idea that no one has launched a service because it makes no business sense, you have no evidence or logic or reasoning to even say that, other than that no one has. But Nintendo ARE doing it, so do you think it makes no business sense for Nintendo to od it because that's exactly what you've just said.

    And I love when you go from "one of the main reasons" so authoritative to "probably" in a matter of words. Maybe, maybe not. But who cares, Nintendo are launching a paid subscription service after 18 months. Why are you fighting it and coming up with arguments why it's a bad business decision? This is getting surreal now. 

    And why would I be disappointed just because I'm thinking in absolute terms? I really wouldn't care if they let people play splatoon for free. Wouldn't' effect me. I'm just saying why they won't. And ambassador programme, that's nothing like this, what a weird thing to being up, straw men flying around all over the place. That was done because 3ds flopped and reduced the price drastically, it was an apology.

    I'll say it again, Nintendo told us BEFORE LAUNCH we were going to have to pay for online. 

    There's no point discussing it really. I think we all understand each others points. I find the whole thing utterly bizarre. And know, come whenever Nintendo announce it, what the outcome will be.

    As for announcement, I think before e3 wild be best, get stout of the way so e3 can just be about the games. But who knows.


  13. 1 hour ago, Sheikah said:

    Well the logic would be to not charge for something that you haven't been charging for for a good while. Going on this "logic", tell me the logic behind the reason for me having to pay 20 quid or whatever to carry on playing Mario Kart? What am I getting now that I wasn't getting before for this money? There is no case for logic here. Business logic sure, for them to make more money, but not for the consumer.

    If they're going to make new games with fully realised and implemented online elements then that would justify charging from that point, but to shoehorn in a tax to carry on playing Mario Kart after so long seems pretty absurd by me.

    No it wouldn't. The logic would be when you start charging for a service, then you start charging for it and all it entails. From a consumer perspective I'd expect this. From a business perspective why would they give any reason to not encourage people to subscribe? From a marketing perspective it means it's clean and easy - you pay to play online, not you pay to play some games online, before this date which will mean nothing to most people...

    Aside from this, we've know from before launch that paid online is coming...

    I'm genuinely kind of gobsmacked we're even having this discussion to be honest, pointless because come September, everyone will have to play to play splatoon and Mario kart.


  14. How will it divide the base like starters and dlc? You pay to play online, or you don't play online. Having some people with dlc packs and some not is literally splitting them up...

    Splatoon is one of their biggest games, they're not going to give it for free and not others, it makes no sense whatsoever, I don't care if no ones ever launched a service half way through. It makes no business sense, no logic sense, it'll make it confusing and clumsy and in pretty much every way it's a bad idea from Nintendo's perspective.

    As for launching it, surely Smash has to launch it? Having Pokemon and animal crossing would be a great triple whammy and cover three different demographics too. Throw in Retros game with a big online component then that'll be great.

    For me though, it's virtual console, how the app works, and more games getting micro apps like Splatoon that excites me the most.


  15. 40 minutes ago, Sheikah said:
    11 hours ago, dazzybee said:
    Potential sales for what? Sorry to be so blunt, but it’s a stupid idea. Why would they give any reason not to subscribe? Makes no sense whatsoever. 

    The whole idea is ridiculous really. Have you ever heard of a company taking away free online from games that have had free online already for a year and a half?

    Not quite sure what you're saying? Are you saying they should be free because no company has taken free online away before? Has any company added online after a time and not charged for it? Did PS3 add theirs half way through? Can't remember now.

    Either way, I'm baffled there's even a discussion. Makes no sense to me. They will charge for online, and you won't be able to play Mario kart, splatoon, poker, arms, rocket league or whatever online without the subscription. 


  16. It’s  all just staggeringly good to be honest. Really wish Hugo was a little older. 5+ seems dreamy for this. But I’ll enjoy it: would just love to experience it with a kid. Properly. Can’t wait to see what more labo packs are coming this year. 


  17. I love stoeybgames with not much gameplay. I loved gone home. And journey. And many others. 

    My problem with oxenfree was I found the characters a little annoying, all a bit too teen angst for my tastes,  and the overarching story not interesting or engaging enough. Some nice elements every so often though. 

    Night in the woods appeals to me a lot more. Sounds a little more sophisticated and complex in its characters and themes, so hoping it works for me much better. But I’ll wait for a sale. 

×