Conina said:
And then there's reality where price drops on consoles/handhelds have boosted sales because they reached new audiences with the lower price. Many people set themselves a limit how much they pay for a console or handheld. |
Yeah. We saw what that $100 dollar price drop did for the Xbox One...I'm not saying a price drop doesn't help, but people put way too much emphasis on it.
I bet the Wii U would sell more than 15M LTD by the end of 2015. He bet it would sell less. I lost.
Ka-pi96 said:
That's not really how the market works though. People pay for it because they think it is worth it, if they didn't then they wouldn't pay for it so Microsoft/Sony would have to either lower the price or abolish it completely. |
It's worth it, because they NEED it to play online.
| NightDragon83 said: So many things wrong with OP... first of all, M$ wasn't the first of the 4 major console manufacturers to charge a subscription fee for online, you know. That distinction technically belongs to... *drumroll* NINTENDO!!! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satellaview And Sega also charged a nominal subscription fee for SegaNet back during the Dreamcast days, and the GameCube's one and only online title Phantasy Star Online II required a... *drumroll again*... monthly fee to play online as well! PS2 was the only console of the gen to truly offer free online gaming (with the exception of FFXI which was a subscription based MMO)... but that was because there was no centralized network a la Xbox Live, and it was up to 3rd parties to set up their own servers. M$ was the first to offer a unified online service for their console, and they did so at a time when broadband internet access was still very limited for most of the US. They were also the first to offer broadband networking capabilities and an HDD built right into the console (the DC initially shipped with only a 56k modem, and broadband was not widely supported... the PS2's Network Adapter and HDD were sold separately). And once the 360 was launched, XBL was opened up to anyone with a console and a broadband connection without a fee... it was only required for multiplayer and later most multimedia apps. They've since updated their model so that essentially only multiplayer requires a subscription, with nearly everything else free, same as PSN. Not surprisingly, Nintendo's online network continues to lag behind in pretty much all areas, so they'd have no justification to charge a subscription based fee... though don't think Nintendo wouldn't if they could justify it... remember, they've already done it before. |
During the begening of the thread I stated that paying for online became popular when Microsoft regained a huge marketshare, while using the online pay model and so other console manufacturer's followed suit. None of the previous attempts were succesful because none of them had a huge marketshare, if people did not pay to play online on xbox the future would be extremly different with no console manufecturer requiring you to pay to game online.
We need to stop for this mentality that we need to pay for a better service, if it was free before it should be free now. If people had not payed for online all online gaming on consoles should be free and manufacturers would be fighting for a better online ecosytem to bring more customers to buy their consoles.
I have all consoles but I won't pay for online services. I just find it completely stupid.
| Gammalad said: You know I shouldn't have to pay JUST TO PLAY ONLINE. I already have to pay my internet bill I don't need another bill to pay just to play online a few times a week with my friends. Basic online play should be free, the other stuff I don't care about being put behind a pay wall. I think the only reason there is no Nintendo Premium right now is because they don't have much to offer for a subscription base. |
Fully agree with you.
| jlmurph2 said: I'd rather pay for a good reliable service that pays for itself. And if you cant afford $40-$50 a year then that's your problem. |
It's about sending a message.
A free online service means nothing to me when the games are not for me, so no can't support the WiiU. I support developers who make games i like and that hasn't included Nintendo for close to 2 decades now.
Ka-pi96 said:
That's..... not really much different. Don't you have to like phone Nintendo up to get your account switched to a different console? That isn't the kind of things that should be needed in the present. |
The restriction is at the level of the accounts – which can only be on one system at a time (hardware based DRM) – not in a “they’re not tied to your account” kind of way. It has nothing to do with a lacking in their online infrastructure, and everything to do with Nintendo's draconion online policies. If you delink your account from one system you can link it to another. The games are tied to your account.
Btw, I'm not defending this policy. It is terrible, but it is completely different than what is suggested in the post that I quoted.
Mr.Playstation said:
|
So you do agree that Nintendo is the one who doesn't offer much to warrant having a subscription right? Because that's what he's saying.
| NickK said: I have all consoles but I won't pay for online services. I just find it completely stupid. |
why is it stupid?
”The environment where PlayStation wins is best for this industry” (Jack Tretton, 2009)
About Us |
Terms of Use |
Privacy Policy |
Advertise |
Staff |
Contact
Display As Desktop
Display As Mobile
© 2006-2024 VGChartz Ltd. All rights reserved.
