By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
MrWayne on 20 September 2018
Edit Thread
Wyrdness said:
MrWayne said:

Look at my replies to spokenTruth, he had a similar point.

keeping cloud saves behind a paywall is a bad service regardless of whether sony does it or nintendo. Why did you mention sony? Did you try to brand me as a sony fanboy?

Also, why are you still pretending that cloud save cost billions of dollars and only a huge company like Microsoft can do it for free? I've given you examples for companies that are as big or smaller than Nintendo and still offer cloud saves for free.

Your point against Valve was also weird, "Valve is damn near nothing but a service company anyway. And they get paid via advertising." What? Valves main business is the same as Nintendo's, selling games on their platform, they're even getting the same 30% share from 3rd party games.

Ultimately the reason why Nintendo keeps cloud saves behind a paywall doesn't even matter, it's a worse service compared to many of their competitors.

You don't seem to get what they're saying Sony and Nintendo would require to invest billions in order to offer cloud saving for free that's a massive investment for something that brings in no money.

Both Sony and Nintendo already offer cloud saving, so they don't have to invest heavily into it because they already done that.

MS had the infrastructure up because they had servers from other aspects of their business already stretching back to all the way when they first had their own online mail service they've been making money off them from their other business exploits hence why they can dedicate a server or two to them with out charge, Valve are a service platform other companies pay a % on sales to be able to distribute their games on PC and manage maintenance the publishers selling their games on the platform are footing the bill. Publishers like Activision have advertisements and aggressive monetisation of their annual games paying things on their side.

What you wrote about Valve is exactly what Nintendo and Sony doing with the e-shop and PSN.

Both Valve and MS had a business model that already involved using servers before hand while both Sony and Nintendo didn't which is why the latter two have to utilise partners to have servers so have to charge in order to pay for it.

That's not true, both Sony and Nintendo had an onlineservice a long time before they offered cloud saving.besides Valve didn't start with a bunch of servers all over the world, back in 2003 they started Steam with a single game, Sony and Nintendo were already big players in the video game market when they started their online service.