What the literal heck Nintendo?!?

[DonFerrari]

padib said:

DonFerrari said:

Actually charging for the online play is greedy, from all 3, sure Nintendo is the one less greedy in this field but well when the quality offered is so inferior it would be hard to justify the price.

PC still have online for free. And we do know that the cost for the online of the 3 isn't that expressive (even more when they already profit from the game sold) even more when they don't host most of the titles/play, they basically only manage matchmaking.

PS3 had free online, Wii and/or WiiU had free online, (did og Xbox had free online?). They started charging purely based on greed and we know it. And the reason for that was basically X360 was able to charge without backlash, so when Sony put PS+ only for the games and had 2M subs but when changing to block MP (except for f2p and others that had their own sub) they rose to like 40M subs and almost everyone accepted (which makes clear that the free games are only there to have less complains, and MS had to add them to avoid negative comparisons). Then Nintendo followed suit but charging less and well giving titles that aren't worth much. Charged online is pure greed.

You're saying that because you probably don't understand the costs of maintaining servers for online play.

For one game a few servers are okay, but Nintendo as a platform holder, like Sony and Microsoft, pay for servers to compute the logic of online play for all the games they support. So no it's not greedy of them they are just covering costs.

It is greedy though if they do a lousy job and we pay for it.

That's my point.

They get that money on spades from the sale of the games and the royalties from the 3rd party games. PC platforms can hold their servers fine enough.