Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Aklyon]

Its was actually how I convinced my brother to not get an xbone over a ps4 if he was sure he just had to get one of the two for christmas, Neon :p

(plus the fact there actually are good single player games I wanted to play on the ps4 like the nier automata demo and DQ builders, but I hadn't mentioned that. I dunno what he'll do when that gift card runs out and he can no longer do anything with rainbow six siege or star wars battlefront, tho.)

[Krevsin]

PS+ is better because it has something other than withholding vital parts of the game going for itself. Mind you that's still like charging a crippled man rent for using a wheelchair but at least you give him some semi-decent chocolate every now and again.

Please do not try to pass this off as normal. This is a publisher locking off essential parts of a game behind a paywall. It is not OK, it is not consumer-friendly and it is not something that is to be defended or rationalized. It is pure unfettered grass processed by medium of bull.

[Aklyon]

Its certainly not normal, theres multiple generation of free multiplayer console games to point to.

But like other things, apparently sticking 'On the internet!' is somehow different and worthy of milking for dlcs and sub fees

[MetalSlimeHunt]

Yes, because games cost 60 bucks just because that's what it costs to develop them and the Switch will also cost 300 bucks because that's exactly what it costs to make one, and the cost of the games on the eshop and virtual console will also be exactly the price that it costs to host and distribute those files.

Poor old Nintendo, the multi-billion dollar corporation, they just can't seem to catch a break from these ordinary people who try to scam them out of their hard-earned money by demanding basic shit like the ability to play their games as intended.

I will start giving them money to help them host their servers only when they stop marking up the prices for their games and consoles to make a profit. They want money to host and operate servers? Maybe have a well-stocked eShop with reasonable release schedules and mark up the games on there for a dollar or so more.

Unless they feel so insecure as to their own future as a storefront that they cannot even rely on a steady cashflow from it due to their godawful practices with the place.

I have no sympathy for Nintendo nor any other corporation pulling this. They're doing it for a single reason and that is quite simply, because they can. On PC developers can't do this shit. Which is why they don't. And oh boy do I see all those big PC multiplayer titles just dropping like flies every day, can't go a single day without a game with a large playerbase shutting down its servers because the publishers just can't afford the horrifying expense of running the servers.

They have no reason to care about their service if it's a money sink for them. That is the be-all end-all of this. Are they making a profit off of you? Obviously, and you should be glad they care enough about the net service to do it. They will never, ever, no matter how much money they make, provide a quality net service otherwise.

This isn't a charity. Console netplay is inherently different from PC netplay, because there's no room for private servers and all of the software involved is proprietary and can't be generalized. You also can't run server ads without people pitching a shitfit. I suppose you could always spend years cracking the game and then run a resurrection project once the game's lifespan is over, like with Resident Evil Outbreak and MGO, but I suspect that's a bit too much wait and time for most people.

Nintendo's consoles are still profitable in the short-term, but their long-term prospects are bleak due to two generations of steady decay. This is a smart decision in both the business and consumer mindset.

[Neonivek]

Honestly I think this is the exact opposite of the right move.

The Switch is a bold move because it is basically going "Hey that DS, that Wii U? Yeah throw them out! We have combined them both into a new console!"

Them then going "Ohh by the way 5 bucks to play this online! With our standardly gimped internet system that we are ALREADY saying will be just as terrible as it usually is with all the barriers you are used to."

Bad enough people are already predicting the Switch's failure.

As for "This is the ONLY way they will ever provide quality net service"

Yeah call me when they provide quality net service...

[Greiger]

Two generations of steady decay from bad decisions.  Seriously, who thought using a tablet for a controller was a good idea?  Who thought forcing motion controls into just about everything was a good idea?  Who thought doing takedowns and milking ad revenue from your own fans advertising your games for free was a good idea?  Even the Nintendo DS's dual screens was probably a bad idea, but it wasn't an astoundingly bad idea like their full size consoles.

Hell the switch has risk of motion controls being shoehorned into everything still.  It's like Nintendo does not learn from their mistakes.

Now they finally have something that has some hope of not being some gimmicky piece of crap that is only still barely alive thanks to running netflix, and they decide to copy their competition's mistakes instead.

[Neonivek]

What is odd is that the Tablet for a controller wasn't a TERRIBLE idea... what killed the Wii U for me was the price of games and the variety of games.

Nintendo likes to make short, small, but fun games... and then charge AAA price.

[Krevsin]

Or you could fund the game's servers by making a subscription service people will actually want to use instead of forcing them to use it to be able to play the games. Or add in optional cosmetics that can be purchased for real dosh instead of unlocking via traditional means. Or finance the servers from e-store sales of say NES games or SNES games.

All of the above are ways of financing server costs that both make money and are not harmful to the end consumer (I do not care what people say about microtransactions for cosmetics in 60 dollar games, provided that's not the only way to get them). Locking off the ability to actually play the game behind a subscription AFTER the already hefty price of buying a game is not.

Of course in the long run maintaining multiplayer games is difficult. However all multiplayer games have a lifespan and a subscription service does not prevent obsolesence and falling out of favour. Nintendo will cut off Splatoon servers not just because they have no money to maintain them, but when not enough people will be playing the game to make the investment of maintaining that server.

Nintendo is not running a charity and I do not expect it to. What I do expect is something less than utter contempt for the consumer.

[Sensei]

The idea that console games being played in multiplayer uses a lot of server resources is false. They do the matchmaking, typically on servers paid for not by Sony/Microsoft/Nintendo but by the game developers, but once clients have been matched together, nearly all games use a peer-to-peer system, meaning that one of the players is the host and their console and internet connection is responsible for all the computational time, electricity usage, and bandwidth usage (which more and more often CAPPED in the US!) The cost of running this is fractional compared to the online store, which handles credit card transactions and the download of game files themselves. Of course, they'd be crazy to charge you just to go into the store. Could they support this service without charging you? Yes. PC games do it, including titles like EA's Battlefront series which do have official dedicated servers rather than peer-to-peer connections. Steam's operating costs are paid for entirely by the cut Valve takes off of game sales (30%, which I think is similar to what Microsoft or Sony take on sales of games for their console.) Other facets of the services, such as VOIP, have ad-driven or even ad-free competitors on every device with a free market (PC, Phone/tablet...)

There's absolutely no way they need to charge that to run the service, it's just a way to scrape more money off of console buyers, and hide the real price of the console. More to the point, the company's costs don't matter. Even if it were for some reason incredibly expensive for companies to run their online networks, and they were generously taking a loss on it after you paid your $60 a year, you'd be foolish to think that's a better deal for you than the free PC ecosystem which exists to this day and shows absolutely no sign of slowing down.

Of course, unless you're really into multiplayer for Mario Kart or Smash, you might feel fine with just not getting Nintendo's premium online service- with the exception of Splatoon, people play Nintendo games for great singleplayer experiences more than multiplayer ones.

[wierd]

What a multiplayer gaming service does:

Assures concurrency. (Keeps sessions timed properly, and in sync)
Assures consistency of game assets (Keeps players from cheating with modified game assets-- see for instance, early halo CE multiplayer)(this also allows the games to stay up to date)
Assures consistency of gameplay (Keeps game clients from falsely reporting game states)
Handles matchmaking and ranking services
Provides a mechanism for handling abusive players

Other than the updating/patching functions of the consistency checks, this is not terribly taxing to a server in a client/server paradigm. If anything, all the flagrant advertising I see in game lobbies these days would handily offset a good portion. This is especially true if the service leverages P2P filesharing tech, like Blizzard's updater does. Then only a small (but statistically relevant) portion of the install base pulls the update, and then just facilitates hash checking and the like as consoles download the update from each other.

[endlessblaze]

I shouldn't have to pay to play a game I already payed for.

[Rose]

Question: Are games required to use Nintendo's online service for playing online?

Because I know that even after Nintendo shut down the wii online service, there's still games that are playable online, because they don't use it.

Or at least one game, anyway. (just dance 2017)

[Sean Mirrsen]

Question: Are games required to use Nintendo's online service for playing online?

Because I know that even after Nintendo shut down the wii online service, there's still games that are playable online, because they don't use it.

Or at least one game, anyway. (just dance 2017)

The wording on the site is "most games", which means hopefully "not all". I.e., like Steam, a lot of games might use it, but there will be those that work fine without it.

[Krevsin]

I still feel that this is making mountains out of molehills here. If you don't want you pay for multiplayer, then just don't.

And further normalize and legitimize business practices that harm me as a consumer?

No, I won't pay their subscription fee. nor will I buy any games that require it in order to function. Nor will I shut up about it because this is not fine. With this, Nintendo have basically eroded all the hype I had for the Switch and I most likely won't be getting one first-hand. Not that I ever particularly savored the idea of fighting for one of the 4 Nintendo will put on sale in central europe.

[Rose]

Also, according to an anonymous redditor, similar subscriptions do give a portion to the game developers, proportionate to how much time the players spend online.

Take that as you will.