Clownferret Posted February 3, 2017 Posted February 3, 2017 So charge everyone extra money even those people who have no intention of using online? You honestly think that's better? Absolutely. A game like Zelda that is a single player game with no on-line functionality would not incur the cost, but games like Mario Kart, Splatoon, COD & FIFA which have a large on-line functionality would incur the charge. The more games you buy the more you contribute towards the online costs. There is always going to be the odd person who doesn't play online but you can't base a system around anomalies you have to base it on the majority. It's much fairer than charging everybody the same regardless of how much they use the service.
Ashley Posted February 3, 2017 Posted February 3, 2017 Absolutely. A game like Zelda that is a single player game with no on-line functionality would not incur the cost, but games like Mario Kart, Splatoon, COD & FIFA which have a large on-line functionality would incur the charge. The more games you buy the more you contribute towards the online costs. There is always going to be the odd person who doesn't play online but you can't base a system around anomalies you have to base it on the majority.It's much fairer than charging everybody the same regardless of how much they use the service. But how do you see that working? An individual subscription cost per game that you have to individually set up? An online account that verifies the online games you have, creates a (monthly? annual?) total that you're billed. What if you no longer play the games but have them on your system (either literally for digital games or a saved file for physical)? Or would the game itself be more expensive? If so, how expensive to balance the costs over the years? And what about resold games where Nintendo wouldn't get the money for that sale and thus no money for the online?
Naar Posted February 3, 2017 Posted February 3, 2017 But how do you see that working? An individual subscription cost per game that you have to individually set up? An online account that verifies the online games you have, creates a (monthly? annual?) total that you're billed. What if you no longer play the games but have them on your system (either literally for digital games or a saved file for physical)? Or would the game itself be more expensive? If so, how expensive to balance the costs over the years? And what about resold games where Nintendo wouldn't get the money for that sale and thus no money for the online?When thinking old fashion mobile phones: prepaid? Only pay when you use the service based on a certain amount of charged "credit" [minutes/sms/MB/hours of possible online gameplay?]
Kav Posted February 3, 2017 Posted February 3, 2017 (edited) You must be trading in dozens of games if you can get a Switch + Zelda for 20 quid. £300 to trade in a Wii U and 3DS?? Yep. Around 20 think. I've played them all through though, with the exception of the Bayonetta games but they didn't click with me, I wasn't a fan. It's always sad to see games go but with the Switch not being backwards compatible and that I don't really play them anymore I may as well. Edited February 3, 2017 by Kav
Ashley Posted February 3, 2017 Posted February 3, 2017 When thinking old fashion mobile phones: prepaid? Only pay when you use the service based on a certain amount of charged "credit" [minutes/sms/MB/hours of possible online gameplay?] Then we get into the classic Nintendo argument - make everything suitable for children even if unsuitable for adults. Thus, what's to stop children causing high bills? A cap? Either Nintendo enforced (i.e. "online is £1 an hour or £7 a month max" or whatever) or the parents can set it via that app?
Ronnie Posted February 3, 2017 Posted February 3, 2017 It's much fairer than charging everybody the same regardless of how much they use the service. I completely disagree. I don't see how charging everyone, regardless of whether they want to play online, an extra cost is fairer than only charging people who want online as an optional extra. Sure a person who plays two online games will get less out of it than someone who plays twenty, but that's far better than over charging everyone to meet the demands of a certain percentage of players.
Retro_Link Posted February 3, 2017 Posted February 3, 2017 (edited) Do you think Nintendo are emphasising the TV <-> Handheld function enough in their advertising running up to launch? The initial Switch reveal video seemed like it put it across well, but in the latest Superbowl ad it was barely shown - and even then I'd personally say the focus wasn't clear enough on what was actually happening - as in the shot itself should have made the Switch from Handheld to TV more evident. It didn't actually show the image moving from one device to the other, and for all intents and purposes could have been someone just picking up a game save on the home console once they'd returned home with the device. I'm very surprised there isn't one TV -> Handheld and one Handheld -> TV moment in every advert - considering the short lead up to launch. The Superbowl ad seemed ridiculously handheld focused, which is fine if that's the message Nintendo want to portray - it'll be the bigger market for them - I just wasn't aware that it was. (for reference) Edited February 3, 2017 by Retro_Link
Naar Posted February 3, 2017 Posted February 3, 2017 Then we get into the classic Nintendo argument - make everything suitable for children even if unsuitable for adults. Thus, what's to stop children causing high bills? A cap? Either Nintendo enforced (i.e. "online is £1 an hour or £7 a month max" or whatever) or the parents can set it via that app?The kid is going to have to go to a gamestore or whatever where they sell tickets that Nintendo accepts in order to charge the account [runescape days... Wally card things?]. If bought online the monies to charge the online play account needs to come from... an online pay account / bank thing / idk how. So either Richy Rich is going to play Mario Kart Online, or the parents supervise stuff. I mean, young kids only have money because their parents sometimes give them money, right?
Happenstance Posted February 3, 2017 Posted February 3, 2017 If Nintendo cant go free online then I'm glad they're just going with the optional subscription fee. All the other ideas coming out of this thread sound terrible!
Glen-i Posted February 3, 2017 Posted February 3, 2017 Wanting things for free is absolutely gamer entitlement and it's one of the biggest problems with this industry, IMO. OK, now I'm insulted. I am many things, but entitled isn't one of them. Here's a mental idea, perhaps paying £280 quid for their console entitles me to a bloody basic feature that's been available for the past two generations! On cheaper hardware to boot! What about all the times I paid full retail price to download a digital copy of a game? The only online games I ever really played last gen on the WiiU were Mario Kart and Smash. I bought Smash for 45 quid, with this "service" (and I use that term very loosely) I would have had to shell out £70 to get the full featured version, for a year. And then the online functionality is snatched away until I cough up another 25 quid. Screw. That. You know what's worse than entitlement? People buying this whole "the fee helps to upkeep the servers" shenanigan. The servers have been working completely fine since the Wii days. But because weak-willed gamers made Sony and Microsoft bank, Ninty are following suit. If you think this is anything other than a money-making scheme, you're deluded.
Ronnie Posted February 3, 2017 Posted February 3, 2017 If you think this is anything other than a money-making scheme, you're deluded. So you're saying it costs Nintendo nothing to run an online infrastructure? Doesn't cost them anything, and they just make 100% profit on all this £1-2 a month gamers will be giving them? (and that's not even getting into the whole, we get free games in return, argument)
Glen-i Posted February 3, 2017 Posted February 3, 2017 So you're saying it costs Nintendo nothing to run an online infrastructure? Doesn't cost them anything, and they just make 100% profit on all this £1-2 a month gamers will be giving them? (and that's not even getting into the whole, we get free games in return, argument) They aren't free! Stop claiming they are! It's a bloody rental service! And when did I say running an online infrastructure costs nothing? You are putting words in my mouth! The profits from selling games, consoles and accessories should go towards running an online infrastructure, like it always bloody has!
Ronnie Posted February 3, 2017 Posted February 3, 2017 (edited) And when did I say running an online infrastructure costs nothing? You said charging for online is nothing but a money making scheme. As for the games we get being rentals, sure, but are you suggesting there's no value in that either? Edited February 3, 2017 by Ronnie
Glen-i Posted February 3, 2017 Posted February 3, 2017 You said charging for online is nothing but a money making scheme. As for the games we get being rentals, sure, but are you suggesting there's no value in that either? Yes, and? Are you trying to suggest that this subscription fee isn't going to make money? Because instead of using money from sales of games, consoles and accessories to run this infrastructure, they're using money you're giving them through this fee. And the rental games have about as much value as a rental from Blockbuster. None at all.
Ronnie Posted February 3, 2017 Posted February 3, 2017 Yes, and? Are you trying to suggest that this subscription fee isn't going to make money? I think it's going to help pay for their online, which is a huge expenditure as Sony, Microsoft and now Nintendo have realised. And the rental games have about as much value as a rental from Blockbuster.None at all. how does a rental have no value at all? You think you should be able to rent films and games for free?
Ashley Posted February 3, 2017 Posted February 3, 2017 OK, now I'm insulted. I am many things, but entitled isn't one of them.Here's a mental idea, perhaps paying £280 quid for their console entitles me to a bloody basic feature that's been available for the past two generations! On cheaper hardware to boot! Accurate description of Nintendo's online services.
Naar Posted February 3, 2017 Posted February 3, 2017 I think it's going to help pay for their online, which is a huge expenditure as Sony, Microsoft and now Nintendo have realised.Huge expenditure? I have no idea about actual cost, but that price [to create the network] is a 1 time thing. Because maintenance isnt the money sucker. One time investment versus possible years of pure income.
Pestneb Posted February 3, 2017 Posted February 3, 2017 Bull!It's exactly that kind of thinking that's got us into this situation. So why exactly do PC gamers not have to pay to play online? What makes their servers different? You claim I'm being entitled, but when I pay 50-60 quid for a game that focuses on the online multiplayer aspect, it's kinda a big massive slap in the face to then be told, "Oh, BTW, you have to pay a monthly fee to enjoy that particular feature" I suppose if you bought a nice shiny new bicycle and then were told that you had to pay £1.50 a month so you could use it in your local park, you'd be fine with it? Because those parks cost money to upkeep, don't they? No, you wouldn't be fine with it. Because that's bloody stupid. And you have to be a bit of a dope to think the "free" VC game makes it worth it. Yeah, you might have had a point if you could keep it. Big fat shame that you only rent it. You're doing what I do to @Dcubed all the time, except you're paying for the benefit! Go you! There's no justifying this. It's pure greed. Suppose they charged to enter say, Alton Towers.. oh wait. they do. Ok, how about cinema entr.. oh, they do. Ok so how about those parks you talk about.. oh yeah they do charge for that. Hmm. Ok how about internet access, how out of line if we... oh wait, we do have to pay ISP's. Hmm. Ok what about facebook? Oh yeah they sell our personal data to "focus" adverts. hmm. You know, when you go to work (assuming of course you do)... have you ever once said to your boss "hey, you know that salary? well you know what, fprget about it this month, it costs me nothing to work, it would be pure greed for me to take this money." I suspect not. I agree in some ways that they could put the charge in the cost of games (I suspect they did so with the Wii U) however there are flaws with that. Take me. 500 hours + on splatoon. For £1.50? Another person... 5 hours... for £1.50.... then they bought MK8.. another £1.50 for 5 hours... so they buy 100 games, pay £150 for online access over 500 hours, while I've paid £1.50 for mine.... Like a voting system there is no way of charging that won't incur instances of injustice. Also on PC front... didn't WoW require payment each month? My main issue with the subscription is if I fancy playing a game say on monday. Last day of January. If I paid for a Month (or if it is purely annual only, the year) would my 1 day of January count as a whole month? would they give me that day free? Would I, if I subscribe on the 14th of February, get to enjoy February and March's "free" vc game, or only February's? or only March's? Interested to see what is what on that front! As for the fee.. it isn't something I'm ecstatic about, but it is a nominal fee, and tbh the way I play vc games, it is basically a free game for me. so I would probably look at it as a vc taster subscription, rather than online sub. In all honesty it is an added cost barrier for me though, looking at £20 a year over 5 years adds £100 to the console cost for me.
Serebii Posted February 3, 2017 Author Posted February 3, 2017 (edited) Look, thanks to PS+, in a year Sony managed to make more money with PS+/PSN alone than Nintendo made in total. That's fucking reason enough. Edited February 3, 2017 by Serebii
Naar Posted February 3, 2017 Posted February 3, 2017 Look, thanks to PS+, Sony managed to make more money with PS+/PSN alone than Nintendo made itself in a year. That's fucking reason enough. Whut? Isnt it about making enjoyable games for people to enjoy them? Im not sitting on the chair of Sony's CEO, so what do i care about stuff like that? If its just about making money and consumers accept that, then gaming is a dying thing.
Ashley Posted February 3, 2017 Posted February 3, 2017 Look, thanks to PS+, Sony managed to make more money with PS+/PSN alone than Nintendo made itself in a year. That's fucking reason enough. Was it ever made clear if that money included the cut they get from each sale made through their storefront? Tried to look at the time but couldn't find a definitive answer. I do wonder how much money they make through non-games stuff they sell on there too.
Ronnie Posted February 3, 2017 Posted February 3, 2017 In all honesty it is an added cost barrier for me though, looking at £20 a year over 5 years adds £100 to the console cost for me. And you get to play an additional 60/120 games NES (and or) SNES games
Pestneb Posted February 3, 2017 Posted February 3, 2017 Huge expenditure? I have no idea about actual cost, but that price [to create the network] is a 1 time thing. Because maintenance isnt the money sucker. One time investment versus possible years of pure income. Obviously. Hardware is one thing, but employing a team of CAPABLE individuals who are able to keep it ticking over is actually a fairly substantial cost. Also the hardware isn't a one time thing, as the network comes under additional strain (something one of those capable individuals would spot) new hardware would be needed. There is the cost of running the servers (they don't run on pixie dust) and cooling. When old hardware fails (it happens often enough) that incurs a cost and they need to purchase specific hardware that will do the right job and perform well enough
Ronnie Posted February 3, 2017 Posted February 3, 2017 If its just about making money and consumers accept that, then gaming is a dying thing. No, it's a dying thing if companies don't make money.
Retro_Link Posted February 3, 2017 Posted February 3, 2017 And you get to play an additional 60/120 games NES (and or) SNES gamesI don't mean to slight Nintendo's past work, but I do feel the 'value' of NES/SNES games has greatly diminished by this stage. The amount of times Nintendo have given the same games away over consoles/promotions/NES classic over the years is in itself a joke these days. If the rental games were (as in my opinion they should be to add value) N64/Gamecube/Wii games... I think this would all be a much smaller issue. Knowing that I'll be receiving NES/SNES games for an online subscription almost turns me off the service more - because it's just the same old thing, and no one wants that in any aspect of life. I think it's fair to say the value of PS+ has diminished lately... however I still think there's something to be said for still providing experiences people haven't played, even if they're not the missed PS3 blockbusters they were 6 months/a year or so ago.
Recommended Posts