M_rock Posted December 7, 2013 Posted December 7, 2013 I have no playstation, so I'm not 100% aware of how PS+ works, but a similar program for the virtual console section and the indie games of the WiiU/ 3DS eshop would certainly interest me. There are tons of titles in there that I have never played before and would love to try out. Or they should at least add more demo's.
Blade Posted December 7, 2013 Posted December 7, 2013 This reminds me when people were moaning about paying 30p for Super Metroid.
Sheikah Posted December 7, 2013 Posted December 7, 2013 (edited) It's funny that you have people screaming off the rooftops about how great value PS+ is when it was always just a means of getting PS3 owners ready for the concept of having to pay to play online games. Now you have legions of fans defending Sony's decision to charge for online play because they're "getting it for free" because they were paying for PS+ anyway - just as they originally hoped for when they started the programme in the first place Even if Nintendo wanted to implement a similar programme (which they wouldn't want to, because it devalues software and encourages people to "wait for it to go free on PS+" ), they couldn't without some sort of future ulterior motive that would subsidise the costs (both monitory and brand wise) involved. They don't want to implement a charge for online play, so they can't justify a similar programme. They don't want to devalue their software, so they can't justify a programme which actively discourages outright software purchases. They want everyone to get the same experience from the hardware, regardless of how they buy their games, so they don't want to implement a programme that would split their userbase. So it won't happen. There's not much to say about this other than to remark that your outlook on the Plus concept is pretty negative. I very much doubt it just started out as a way to rope people in to a subscription that they would 4 years down the line enforce on everyone. And even if it did - then that's clearly the way to do it. Introduce something so brilliant that people willingly sign up for it in large numbers. Such that many won't even notice a difference should online ever be an element of Plus, since they're already subscribers. Obviously not everyone, but a lot of people are. And the people now having to pay at least get loads of games for 3 systems. Also I'm sure Nintendo would make a tidy sum putting out retro games on a subscription service a la Plus rather than making pittance as they do now (barely any of them chart in the top 40 on a week to week basis). I know a lot of people comment on how Nintendo software does well over time, but there must be fuck loads of retro titles at least that barely shift anything on a weekly basis. I mean, they just have so many. They could easily sell £20 yearly subscriptions and give some of these away and make more money than they would have otherwise. And since people need to be subscribed to continue to play them, people will often stay subscribed. Edited December 7, 2013 by Retro_Link unnecessary personal comment
liger05 Posted December 7, 2013 Posted December 7, 2013 Playstation+ was a response to XBOX live. Sony saw the money MS made from live and realised not offering something along those lines was leaving money on the table.
Jonnas Posted December 7, 2013 Posted December 7, 2013 If Nintendo were to adopt such a service, the logical thing would be to offer only retro games. Their major games sell like cupcakes as it is, and their smaller ones could do without the "I'll be free eventually" stigma. I suppose it could work like this, I mean, how well do their NES games sell, anyway? Or maybe they're just afraid that people will just stop buying new stuff once they get their hands on Super Metroid, Ocarina of Time, Super Mario 64, the DKC Trilogy, etc.
Retro_Link Posted December 7, 2013 Posted December 7, 2013 Plus' Instant Game Collection is equally, if not more so about Indie and Third Party games. Maybe this is where Nintendo would struggle and therefore have to make it more about First and Third Party Virtual Console games.
khilafah Posted December 7, 2013 Posted December 7, 2013 well nintendo need to offer actual real accounts before any subscription service.. wink wink!! but seriously I would pay for online even without any free games on offer. If it meant that nintendo's online offerings where near or better then xbox live then it would be worth it.
Dcubed Posted December 7, 2013 Posted December 7, 2013 (edited) @Sheikah There's nothing wrong with PS+ - in fact, I think it's a great service for "light" gamers who don't buy all that many games or really care about building a large collection of games that they'll come back to years down the line. The point I was making is that Nintendo is not in a position where they can offer a similar service and that this kind of service would go against their business goals. Sony could do it because they saw the huge truckloads of cash that MS (as their most direct competitor) were raking in from XBL subs and wanted in on that income (and this was a good way to do just that) - Iwata however has continuously publically stated that they don't want to charge consumers to play online; though of course that doesn't mean that they aren't interested in other avenues of online payments & subscription (Iwata mentioned this before in a shareholder meeting last year) like you see with Wii Sports Club or Pokemon Bank. So something like PS+ simply doesn't fit in with Nintendo's way of doing business... It's not about it being good or bad, it just doesn't fit with what Nintendo wants to do, so it won't happen. Edited December 7, 2013 by Dcubed
Sheikah Posted December 7, 2013 Posted December 7, 2013 I don't mean they should have a pay for online version like with PS4, I meant having a PS Plus optional subscription like with PS3 (still with free online). I think Nintendo charging for online would be suicidal given how far behind it is compared to the other 2 consoles. A retro Plus service where you subscribe to get games each month would work really well though. They have so many games that there's no way they can be making as much money from them all compared to subscriptions.
Dcubed Posted December 7, 2013 Posted December 7, 2013 I don't mean they should have a pay for online version like with PS4, I meant having a PS Plus optional subscription like with PS3 (still with free online). I think Nintendo charging for online would be suicidal given how far behind it is compared to the other 2 consoles. A retro Plus service where you subscribe to get games each month would work really well though. They have so many games that there's no way they can be making as much money from them all compared to subscriptions. But that would de-value their software and encourage people to just wait for their games to go free. That's exactly the kind of scenario they're trying to avoid! Nintendo have nothing to gain from this; not like Sony did.
Sheikah Posted December 7, 2013 Posted December 7, 2013 Nintendo have literally thousands of games in their retro libraries. It'd be madness to not buy any titles at all separately in the hope it becomes free one day. Most casual gamers honestly have no strategy when it comes to this sort of thing anyway. They'd just pay the individual fee to download that old school Mario game that they really wanted. They could definitely do it. If you add up all the £30 subscriptions they could Mae, it becomes really lucrative. I sincerely doubt many of their retro titles make anywhere near the kind of money on a yearly basis as what they could make if packaged up.
khilafah Posted December 8, 2013 Posted December 8, 2013 Nintendo have literally thousands of games in their retro libraries. It'd be madness to not buy any titles at all separately in the hope it becomes free one day. Most casual gamers honestly have no strategy when it comes to this sort of thing anyway. They'd just pay the individual fee to download that old school Mario game that they really wanted. They could definitely do it. If you add up all the £30 subscriptions they could Mae, it becomes really lucrative. I sincerely doubt many of their retro titles make anywhere near the kind of money on a yearly basis as what they could make if packaged up. i question how many people would pay a sub for retro games. cant see it being popular. nintendo need to first create an impressive online community. start matching what the competition is offering and go from there.
Ashley Posted December 8, 2013 Posted December 8, 2013 It would be interesting to see sales figures for VC titles actually, but doubt Nintendo publicise them. I imagine some titles on there don't even sell anything on a week-by-week basis and offering them for free won't devalue the titles any more than some are currently over-valued.
Serebii Posted December 8, 2013 Posted December 8, 2013 (edited) What if, instead of giving you free games, it just continues and enhances the current Nintendo Network Premium (which ends in 12 months), and gives you money back for your purchases in addition to say a free Virtual Console game each month. Edited December 8, 2013 by Serebii
Ashley Posted December 8, 2013 Posted December 8, 2013 Does anyone actually benefit from the NNP thing? It sounded like a good idea, but from what I recall you have to spend a crazy amount in order to actually see any valuable return.
Serebii Posted December 8, 2013 Posted December 8, 2013 Does anyone actually benefit from the NNP thing? It sounded like a good idea, but from what I recall you have to spend a crazy amount in order to actually see any valuable return. Not really. In America, if you buy a standard retail game, you essentially get $5 back. In Europe, we have to get just a bit more as neither counts tax in the calculation. America's tax is after the RRP while ours is within it, so for a £49.99 game we get around 425 points back. In addition to that, if you get say a download code for Mario for £40 from GAME, it will still calculate the points as if it is the price at the eShop. A friend of mine has got around £20 so far and he hasn't really bought that much digitally. I myself have had £10 back so far and have barely bought anything.
Jimbob Posted December 8, 2013 Posted December 8, 2013 If Nintendo were to offer a paid online service, something similar to what Sony offer would be suitable for me. Access to a complete retro gaming catalogue across both 3DS and WiiU as well as exclusive discounts on products/games as well.
RedShell Posted December 8, 2013 Posted December 8, 2013 Not really. In America, if you buy a standard retail game, you essentially get $5 back. In Europe, we have to get just a bit more as neither counts tax in the calculation. America's tax is after the RRP while ours is within it, so for a £49.99 game we get around 425 points back. Not really? It's a right piss-take!"£5" back but the game costs you £50?! How about £10-£20 (potentially even more) saved by purchasing the physical version online? I've spent around £200 on Wii U games so far, but if I'd have downloaded them instead that would be closer to £600! eShop prices are messed up, Premium scheme or otherwise.
Serebii Posted December 8, 2013 Posted December 8, 2013 Not really? It's a right piss-take!"£5" back but the game costs you £50?! How about £10-£20 (potentially even more) saved by purchasing the physical version online? I've spent around £200 on Wii U games so far, but if I'd have downloaded them instead that would be closer to £600! eShop prices are messed up, Premium scheme or otherwise. Blame the retailers :/ They mandate that if publishers attempt to undercut on their own platforms, outside of special promotions, they'll stop stocking the products.
RedShell Posted December 8, 2013 Posted December 8, 2013 Blame the retailers :/ They mandate that if publishers attempt to undercut on their own platforms, outside of special promotions, they'll stop stocking the products.I'm not really looking to blame anyone, just saying that the NNP thing isn't exactly up to much. Anyway, the current retail situation with Wii U is already terrible, with minimal to non-existent shelf space in lots of cases, so it's not like Nintendo have to worry about upsetting many retailers now.
Serebii Posted December 8, 2013 Posted December 8, 2013 I'm not really looking to blame anyone, just saying that the NNP thing isn't exactly up to much. Anyway, the current retail situation with Wii U is already terrible, with minimal to non-existent shelf space in lots of cases, so it's not like Nintendo have to worry about upsetting many retailers now. Indeed. What happened to that deal with Tesco of theirs?
RedShell Posted December 8, 2013 Posted December 8, 2013 Indeed. What happened to that deal with Tesco of theirs? No idea. To be honest I don't keep up with the business side of things that much, and the last time I bought a Wii U game at a store was... never. In fact the only non-online Wii U related purchase I ever made was a Pro Controller for 20 quid at ASDA.
Serebii Posted December 8, 2013 Posted December 8, 2013 No idea. To be honest I don't keep up with the business side of things that much, and the last time I bought a Wii U game at a store was... never. In fact the only non-online Wii U related purchase I ever made was a Pro Controller for 20 quid at ASDA. Brick & mortar retail sucks for games and game stuff. Hell, I saw a Wii Remote for £49.99 in GAME the other day, and a Nunchuck for £29.99. I mean what the actual hell??
RedShell Posted December 8, 2013 Posted December 8, 2013 Brick & mortar retail sucks for games and game stuff. Hell, I saw a Wii Remote for £49.99 in GAME the other day, and a Nunchuck for £29.99. I mean what the actual hell??That is actually offensive. Still can't get my head around how GAME managed to survive, didn't improve at all, but are still going?!
Retro_Link Posted December 8, 2013 Posted December 8, 2013 That is actually offensive. Still can't get my head around how GAME managed to survive, didn't improve at all, but are still going?! But, but... they give away exclusive sleeves etc... for £10 more.
Recommended Posts