Happenstance Posted February 2, 2017 Share Posted February 2, 2017 No, i cant. Can you elaborate a bit more? Its just a bit confusing as its not really a debatable thing, unfortunately these things do cost money Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sheikah Posted February 2, 2017 Share Posted February 2, 2017 No, i cant. Then let me ask you a question - are servers free to run? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Naar Posted February 2, 2017 Share Posted February 2, 2017 Can you elaborate a bit more? Its just a bit confusing as its not really a debatable thing, unfortunately these things do cost money They do, but Nintendo isnt going to come knocking on my door to install the special Nintendo online cable. The online aspect should be free because it increases sales in the end. People buy games, and discover online play is free of charge. Maybe i'll consider buying that [mostly] online multiplayer game for 60 euro's now. If i dont like it? Screw it, the online was free anyway. And also because capitalism has a, uhm, roof? Gaming is getting more expensive every year. Every year people who love to game have no choice than to drop out because of the cost. In the end this will cause the market to shrink, thus raising the prices even further. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happenstance Posted February 2, 2017 Share Posted February 2, 2017 Thats fine then if you personally dont think they should charge. I think the issue was just getting confused. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ronnie Posted February 2, 2017 Share Posted February 2, 2017 Maybe i'll consider buying that [mostly] online multiplayer game for 60 euro's now. If i dont like it? Screw it, the online was free anyway. This argument makes absolutely no sense. Gaming is getting more expensive because games are getting more expensive to make. Unless of course you think Witcher 3 cost as much to make as Wrecking Crew on the NES. I'm surprised the average cost of games hasn't gone up more to be honest. We were still paying £45ish for N64 games, if not more. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
somme Posted February 2, 2017 Share Posted February 2, 2017 Gaming is getting more expensive every year. You must have forgotten the N64 era. That was by far the most expensive generation. Games were way more expensive then, than they are now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Serebii Posted February 2, 2017 Author Share Posted February 2, 2017 That subscription is about 25 quid too much. I'm a little saddened that gamers just about rolled over and accepted Microsoft's pay-to-play scheme. And then when Sony followed suit, the same thing happened again. And now it's going to happen with Ninty, I can just feel it. At least it's half what the others charge. Let's be thankful of that at least Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cube Posted February 2, 2017 Share Posted February 2, 2017 This argument makes absolutely no sense. I think he's saying that the choice of deciding to buy an online-focus game game is essentially due the cost of a game plus the cost of the subscription fee. It's the main reason I didn't buy Overwatch on PS4. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sheikah Posted February 2, 2017 Share Posted February 2, 2017 They do, but Nintendo isnt going to come knocking on my door to install the special Nintendo online cable. The online aspect should be free because it increases sales in the end. People buy games, and discover online play is free of charge. Maybe i'll consider buying that [mostly] online multiplayer game for 60 euro's now. If i dont like it? Screw it, the online was free anyway. And also because capitalism has a, uhm, roof? Gaming is getting more expensive every year. Every year people who love to game have no choice than to drop out because of the cost. In the end this will cause the market to shrink, thus raising the prices even further. Online play being free doesn't increase profit for the console companies though. Look at the PS4 with the paid for Plus subscription and the profit Sony makes. So long as companies stand to make more money charging for online than if they didn't charge, they will charge. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ronnie Posted February 2, 2017 Share Posted February 2, 2017 I think he's saying that the choice of deciding to buy an online-focus game game is essentially due the cost of a game plus the cost of the subscription fee. It's the main reason I didn't buy Overwatch on PS4. Sure but I couldn't understand the argument that it's fine to waste 60 euros on a hypothetical game he doesn't like, because he didn't spend an extra 2-4 euros on the online? Especially considering the online cost isn't per game, it's a shared cost for all games. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Naar Posted February 2, 2017 Share Posted February 2, 2017 You must have forgotten the N64 era. That was by far the most expensive generation. Games were way more expensive then, than they are now.No i havent. Perfect Dark was extra expensive if i recall correctly. But the amount of replay value [totally offline] you got for that and the overal quality and the fact the game was done when released made up for that. Also, back then i was a teen in school. I didnt have alot of money. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ronnie Posted February 2, 2017 Share Posted February 2, 2017 No i havent. Perfect Dark was extra expensive if i recall correctly. But the amount of replay value [totally offline] you got for that and the overal quality and the fact the game was done when released made up for that. Also, back then i was a teen in school. I didnt have alot of money. So you're saying Perfect Dark has more replayability than modern games? If the high price was fine back then, why isn't it fine now? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ashley Posted February 2, 2017 Share Posted February 2, 2017 Perfect Dark didn't have online because of when it was released... It did require you buy an expansion pack though. Anyone remember how much they cost? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happenstance Posted February 2, 2017 Share Posted February 2, 2017 I got mine with DK64. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ashley Posted February 2, 2017 Share Posted February 2, 2017 You're no good I seem to think they were £20 for the solus unit, but maybe I'm just making things up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Naar Posted February 2, 2017 Share Posted February 2, 2017 So you're saying Perfect Dark has more replayability than modern games? If the high price was fine back then, why isn't it fine now?Perfect Dark was 180 pre-euro Dutch currency. That money bought me the FULL Perfect Dark experience [already had the expension pack]. Now, you pay 55-60 ish euro on release for a possibly broken game that needs day 1 patching. Then there's the DLC, and on top of that the online fee. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
killthenet Posted February 2, 2017 Share Posted February 2, 2017 I got mine with Donkey Kong too but I think they were about £25 - £30 if you bought them on their own. I don't think the games that came with them were any more expensive because of it either but I had them bought for me so I might be getting that wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happenstance Posted February 2, 2017 Share Posted February 2, 2017 Perfect Dark was 180 pre-euro Dutch currency. That money bought me the FULL Perfect Dark experience [already had the expension pack]. Now, you pay 55-60 ish euro on release for a possibly broken game that needs day 1 patching. Then there's the DLC, and on top of that the online fee. It all depends on the game though doesnt it. You could argue that some games you buy now and then are constantly getting new content for them, sometimes free of charge. I remember some people on this forum being big fans of Splatoons roll out of maps etc to keep things fresh. Also I think that if day one patches were possible back then, then you probably would have seen them. I'm sure Perfect Dark devs would have loved to have had the opportunity to go in a fix stuff later. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ronnie Posted February 2, 2017 Share Posted February 2, 2017 Perfect Dark was 180 pre-euro Dutch currency. That money bought me the FULL Perfect Dark experience [already had the expension pack]. Now, you pay 55-60 ish euro on release for a possibly broken game that needs day 1 patching. Then there's the DLC, and on top of that the online fee. You said games are getting more expensive. I argue 1. no they're not, unless you want the optional DLC and 2. games have far more content than 20 years ago. I'm actually surprised the price of games hasn't gone up in all this time. So yeah, £2 a month for online is fine by me. These things aren't cheap for Nintendo, Sony and Microsoft to implement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ashley Posted February 2, 2017 Share Posted February 2, 2017 Also I think that if day one patches were possible back then, then you probably would have seen them. I'm sure Perfect Dark devs would have loved to have had the opportunity to go in a fix stuff later. That's the weird thing - 'back in the day' bugs couldn't be patched and were accepted (or exploited or given names), whereas now they can and are patched and people complain about games not being perfect at launch as if that's new... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ronnie Posted February 2, 2017 Share Posted February 2, 2017 That's the weird thing - 'back in the day' bugs couldn't be patched and were accepted (or exploited or given names), whereas now they can and are patched and people complain about games not being perfect at launch as if that's new... I think people complain because the bugs are far more obvious and occasionally game-breaking from the off. eg: Drive Club, Batman Arkham Knight on PC, Watch Dogs 2 online etc Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ashley Posted February 2, 2017 Share Posted February 2, 2017 I think people complain because the bugs are far more obvious and occasionally game-breaking from the off. eg: Drive Club, Batman Arkham Knight on PC, Watch Dogs 2 online etc You yourself just said games are becoming increasingly complex. It's inevitable the potential problems are going to become bigger too. The amount of games released every year has grown exponentially and only a small minority of them have big problems. There's also the fact that we can hear about it a lot more easily than back in the 90's. And for what it's worth, "game-breaking" is a misnomer in those ones you listed Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Naar Posted February 2, 2017 Share Posted February 2, 2017 You said games are getting more expensive. I argue 1. no they're not, unless you want the optional DLC and 2. games have far more content than 20 years ago. I'm actually surprised the price of games hasn't gone up in all this time. So yeah, £2 a month for online is fine by me. These things aren't cheap for Nintendo, Sony and Microsoft to implement. We will not agree in any way whatsoever. Edit: regarding this subject. So im out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ronnie Posted February 2, 2017 Share Posted February 2, 2017 You yourself just said games are becoming increasingly complex. It's inevitable the potential problems are going to become bigger too. The amount of games released every year has grown exponentially and only a small minority of them have big problems. There's also the fact that we can hear about it a lot more easily than back in the 90's. And for what it's worth, "game-breaking" is a misnomer in those ones you listed Absolutely. My point was that you can't compare compare reaction to bugs back then which (generally speaking) a small fraction of people would encounter, versus the more wide-spread ones of today. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ashley Posted February 2, 2017 Share Posted February 2, 2017 Absolutely. My point was that you can't compare compare reaction to bugs back then which (generally speaking) a small fraction of people would encounter, versus the more wide-spread ones of today. Ah but just because they were less publicly known due to limited mass communication, does that make them less bad than the ones now? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts