padib said:
Don, it's even simpler than that. Gold and Nintendo Online offer virtually the same thing (albeit of very varying quality, very good on MS side, poor on Nintendo side), still the price is 20USD on Nintendo's side and 60USD on Microsoft's side. But they essentially offer the same service while of varying quality. My point was that at 20USD it is not so greedy, the problem is really the quality of the online service. Because with the extra perks, it would be essentially the same price as Gold but you get more, so long as the quality of the service is up to today's standards. So the truth is that the price is right, the problem is that the quality of the service is poor. |
Nope I don't think you really get more on the Nintendo Online or expansion compared to neither Plus or Gold.

duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"
http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363
Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"
http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994
Azzanation: "PS5 wouldn't sold out at launch without scalpers."







