By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
padib said:
DonFerrari said:

Well you can ignore GP and just go versus Gold and PS+, 2 or 3 current games (sometimes AAA that is less than 1 year old) for about similar price of what Nintendo wants to charge this expansion to give several gens old games.

And if we are talking only the multiplayer aspect of the online, Nintendo version is very much worse than all the rest (even more for adding friends and the like), worse even than what PSN was when free.

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."