Should Nintendo adopt a PS Plus style service?

[Hero-of-Time]

Glad to see others see the greatness that is PS+. It really does pay for itself and even I can't keep up with the freebies it dishes out. The fact that you get discounts from the PSN Store is also another bonus of the service.

 

Man, if Nintendo did this it would be amazing. Getting freebies from the past Nintendo eras would be great and also getting a discount on e-Shop releases would be welcome as well. Shame.

[Happenstance]

Man, if Nintendo did this it would be amazing. Getting freebies from the past Nintendo eras would be great and also getting a discount on e-Shop releases would be welcome as well. Shame.

 

It just seems like something that would work better for Nintendo than it would for others with their extensive back catalogue they would have a lot more to offer up and we would all be gushing over their service right now instead.

[Sheikah]

Yeah it would be great if Nintendo adopted a similar scheme.

[Serebii]

Yeah I'd love it if Nintendo put vital features behind a paywall and tried to placate us with free old stuff too :p

[Retro_Link]

Me too!

[RedShell]

Yeah I'd love it if Nintendo put vital features behind a paywall and tried to placate us with free old stuff too :p

You must really love Pokémon Bank then.

[Sheikah]

Yeah I'd love it if Nintendo put vital features behind a paywall and tried to placate us with free old stuff too :p

 

Oh, Nintendo has a far worse scheme already rolled out.

 

Just don't give people the vital features at all.

[Serebii]

Oh, Nintendo has a far worse scheme already rolled out.

 

Just don't give people the vital features at all.

Erm, it has them. Don't hyperbolise.

 

You must really love Pokémon Bank then.

I don't. I find the annual fee rather ridiculous

[Sheikah]

Remind me where the messaging feature on the 3DS is again?

[Josh64]

This is how Nintendo wants us to message one another, silly.

 

 

(And if it was always played out in song, I totally wouldn't mind)

[Serebii]

Remind me where the messaging feature on the 3DS is again?

Speak to me next week :p

[RedShell]

So this idea/desire for Nintendo to do a PS+ style scheme, do those people that buy all (or a lot) of Nintendo's games still welcome the idea? I mean, I buy pretty much everything Nintendo release, so I'm not sure how I'd feel about some of those games then being given away for free, even after a certain amount of time has passed.

 

I remember being kind of disappointed with the 3DS Ambassador Program because I already owned the majority of the games they offered, I imagine this kind of thing would be equally, if not more annoying.

 

Don't see it happening anyway. For a start Nintendo will probably want to keep the small advantage of being the only option for free online play among the big 3. And secondly it devalues software, which is something that they seem very keen to avoid.

[Retro_Link]

So this idea/desire for Nintendo to do a PS+ style scheme, do those people that buy all (or a lot) of Nintendo's games still welcome the idea? I mean, I buy pretty much everything Nintendo release, so I'm not sure how I'd feel about some of those games then being given away for free, even after a certain amount of time has passed.

 

I remember being kind of disappointed with the 3DS Ambassador Program because I already owned the majority of the games they offered, I imagine this kind of thing would be equally, if not more annoying.

 

Don't see it happening anyway. For a start Nintendo will probably want to keep the small advantage of being the only option for free online play among the big 3. And secondly it devalues software, which is something that they seem very keen to avoid.

Yep I understand that point, but it would all depend what Nintendo did with it.

 

Plus is very much third party games too, so it would no doubt give you a chance to try certain 3rd party games that you wouldn't necessarily play otherwise, be that an Assassin's Creed, Sonic Racing, Zombie U or a Bayonetta (down the line) etc...

 

Also Plus often gives away Indie games, so there's an opportunity there.

 

As well as delving into the First Party and Third Party SNES, N64, Gamecube back catalogue for games.

[Sheikah]

So this idea/desire for Nintendo to do a PS+ style scheme, do those people that buy all (or a lot) of Nintendo's games still welcome the idea? I mean, I buy pretty much everything Nintendo release, so I'm not sure how I'd feel about some of those games then being given away for free, even after a certain amount of time has passed.

 

I remember being kind of disappointed with the 3DS Ambassador Program because I already owned the majority of the games they offered, I imagine this kind of thing would be equally, if not more annoying.

 

Don't see it happening anyway. For a start Nintendo will probably want to keep the small advantage of being the only option for free online play among the big 3. And secondly it devalues software, which is something that they seem very keen to avoid.

 

I think it'd be a bit different for Nintendo to implement since they'd mostly be giving away their own games (with Sony, most games/good games on their system are third party titles). But still, past a certain time after release, I'd have thought there would be more money to be made from large numbers of subscriptions rather than the reduced number of sales games tend to have a while after release. Otherwise I don't think Plus would even be in place, if it didn't bring in more money than it cost.

[liger05]

So this idea/desire for Nintendo to do a PS+ style scheme, do those people that buy all (or a lot) of Nintendo's games still welcome the idea? I mean, I buy pretty much everything Nintendo release, so I'm not sure how I'd feel about some of those games then being given away for free, even after a certain amount of time has passed.

 

I remember being kind of disappointed with the 3DS Ambassador Program because I already owned the majority of the games they offered, I imagine this kind of thing would be equally, if not more annoying.

 

Don't see it happening anyway. For a start Nintendo will probably want to keep the small advantage of being the only option for free online play among the big 3. And secondly it devalues software, which is something that they seem very keen to avoid.

 

No I dont think they need to do something like that. I wouldn't mind paying a monthly fee though for a stacked VC Library where I had access to all those games whenever I wanted.

 

I have PS+ now on PS4 but that was simply out of necessity as you need it to play online. The whole games on offer isnt something I imagine will apply to me personally as the games I want I buy when they are released.

Edited December 6, 2013 by liger05

[RedShell]

But still, past a certain time after release, I'd have thought there would be more money to be made from large numbers of subscriptions rather than the reduced number of sales games tend to have a while after release.

Yeah, but not so much for Nintendo I reckon, what with their own games selling over such long periods of time at full price.

 

The whole games on offer isnt something I imagine will apply to me personally as the games I want I buy when they are released.

See that's the thing about PS+ that I imagine to be annoying, as there must be people that have already bought the games that Sony end up giving away. And although in a minority, there has to be some people that would've bought (or will buy on the PS4) all of the games that end up as part of the free games, which ironically means they (the biggest fans) end up worse off.

[dazzybee]

The playstation plus is so good if you don't get it you're an idiot argument doesn't make sense. If it was then Sony wouldn't have to enforce it because everyone would already be a member because it's such "incredible" value. But it's not a universal truth som Sony are now forcing us to pay to play online. Which is not a good thing, how much value it offers is a pure straw man argument.

 

Personally, I am a plus member and think it is great value for money. But I'm still disgusted we have to pay to play. It was a huge tick box for Sony now gone. I genuinely thought ms would have to abandon the idea, not Sony join them.....

 

As for Nintendo, I wouldn't want them to copy it directly. Like RedShell I want to own all their games and wouldn't want them appearing free, with ps I don't care, I sell any game that appears I already have and means I actually don't buy games form ps3 or vita anymore. What I wouldn't mind doing is a monthly subscription for the virtual console service like some have mentioned, but they'd have to seriously fill it with content. £5 a month for an incredible library. Slightly expensive, but if they then used the profits to improve their online services as well (which are always free) then Id be happy with that.

Edited December 7, 2013 by dazzybee
Automerged Doublepost

[Sheikah]

Yeah, but not so much for Nintendo I reckon, what with their own games selling over such long periods of time at full price.

 

See that's the thing about PS+ that I imagine to be annoying, as there must be people that have already bought the games that Sony end up giving away. And although in a minority, there has to be some people that would've bought (or will buy on the PS4) all of the games that end up as part of the free games, which ironically means they (the biggest fans) end up worse off.

 

Yeah with the last part, I think this scheme probably works better on PS3 just because there are more games/third party games, so more chance of a game you haven't played.

[Happenstance]

Its certainly a service that gets better the further into a console's life it gets.

 

As for the paying for online thing, obviously thats also something I would rather not have to do but that money is supposedly being funneled into Sony's online infrastructure itself. Not having to pay to play online on the PS3 was a major plus but it was pretty well known that Sony's online was not as good as Microsoft's for that reason. Now hopefully it will be. I dont know if its anything to do with that but we at least see the increased speeds when it comes to downloads on the PS4 already.

Edited December 7, 2013 by Happenstance

[Dcubed]

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.

[Ashley]

So your point about Sony is "a business did a clever business move and it worked"?

[Dcubed]

So your point about Sony is "a business did a clever business move and it worked"?

 

Yeah, it was a very clever move and it seems to have worked very well. But what worked for Sony would not work for Nintendo because they have very different goals in mind.

 

For Sony, it was always a Trojan Horse to get people to pay to play online, but Nintendo don't want to do that... So such a programme is of no use to them...

[Ashley]

I'm curious what makes you say it was always their intention. It might well have been, but have they said that?

[Fused King]

When paying to play comes up regarding the Playstation, I've always asked myself this:

 

How much is 50 euros a year, really?

 

It's nothing, really. Now if it were monthly it would be a bigger financial pressure on a poor ol' student, but 50 a year, considering the stuff you get in return, it's epic value.

 

My girlfriend, who has now had a Playstation 3 for a while, always said that Sony was losing money on her, because she really needn't buy games in the store....almost ever, because of all the free games.

That got me thinking that Sony really is in this for the long term and tries to do everything right in gamers' eyes.

[Retro_Link]

I guess maybe it depends when you come to the console.

 

As someone who only bought a PS3 less than 2 years ago, I had a huge amount of games to catch up on, I am therefore behind on games, never buy new releases on release day as I'm constantly playing older games and thus PS Plus is a god send. As @Fused King just said, I hardly need ever buy a game!

 

Likewise if I were to buy a Wii U tomorrow a similar service would already be great value... for me, going forward.

 

However had I had the Wii U since launch, had played all the games I wanted and getting the majority of games on release, it's a different story.

 

I still believe gamer's in that situation are likely still missing out on at least some games, at least third party and indie games, but yes it would be a bit of a stretch.

 

However, say 2-3 years into the Wii U lifespan I think it would then become good value for every Wii U owner.

 

Another factor I think is money.

 

Personally I can't afford right now to buy all games at launch, particularly Nintendo First Party games that don't really ever drop in price. So to pay £30-£40 (the cost of ONE new game) and be able to catch up on all these even if at a later date is extremely good value.

Edited December 7, 2013 by Retro_Link