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

Forums - Nintendo Discussion - Nintendo Switch Online announced

Lonely_Dolphin on 02 June 2017
spemanig said:
Einsam_Delphin said:

lol no it isn't, I don't have to pay to play Smash locally (or at all currently). Do you work for Microsoft/Sony/Nintendo? I can't see why else one would try to defend the undefendable.

Why does every thread have to degrade to this? Come on, dude. You're better than that.

Wonder where you got that idea from, better adjust your expectations.

I do want to know though. Does he enjoy paying to play his games he already paid for? Does he enjoy feeling like he has to play his online games constantly otherwise it's wasted money? I'm genuinely curious!



Around the Network
Paperboy_J on 02 June 2017
Einsam_Delphin said:
spemanig said:

Why does every thread have to degrade to this? Come on, dude. You're better than that.

Wonder where you got that idea from, better adjust your expectations.

I do want to know though. Does he enjoy paying to play his games he already paid for? Does he enjoy feeling like he has to play his online games constantly otherwise it's wasted money? I'm genuinely curious!

You're several years too late to start complaining about this, buddy.  Where were you when Microsoft started this trend?

I'm not defending Nintendo on this, don't get me wrong, but I also don't think $20 is the end of the world either.  Seriously, if $20 is a lot of money to you, you're in the wrong hobby.



Cloudman on 02 June 2017
Bajablo said:
Cloudman said:

Huh, well that price makes the bullet a lot easier to bite.

Also forgot to add. I really wanna know how online will work for some games like Mario Bros 3.

i would guess you take turns as you do in the regular game

That's what I was thinking, but I'm hoping that's not the case, since that sounds kinda boring...



 

              

Dance my pretties!

The Official Art Thread      -      The Official Manga Thread      -      The Official Starbound Thread

Lonely_Dolphin on 02 June 2017
Paperboy_J said:
Einsam_Delphin said:

Wonder where you got that idea from, better adjust your expectations.

I do want to know though. Does he enjoy paying to play his games he already paid for? Does he enjoy feeling like he has to play his online games constantly otherwise it's wasted money? I'm genuinely curious!

You're several years too late to start complaining about this, buddy.  Where were you when Microsoft started this trend?

I'm not defending Nintendo on this, don't get me wrong, but I also don't think $20 is the end of the world either.

Where am I complaining? I just answered the dude's question and am now questioning why he's trying to defend pay to play.



Frogger on 02 June 2017
Wyrdness said:
spemanig said:

It actually does. The market place isn't blind to wrong doing. It's the whole reason streaming and subscription platforms like Spotify and Netflix exist, thrive, and have largely replaced their predecessors in the first place. They're a direct market reaction to piracy. People can get all of this stuff for free now, and it's so rampant that it can't be policed or ignored. The marketplace changed, and companies have adjusted to accommedate that. Just because you don't like piracy, and you shouldn't, doesn't mean it hasn't tremendously depreciated the value of literally every form of media including games, and especially old games that also have to deal with being old. Not to state the obvious, but most people pirate old games as a means to avoid buying them. So the percieved value of these games to most people is a wopping $0.

This entire Switch subscription is an admission by Nintendo that these games aren't worth what they've charged and that they can't get away with charging what they have if they want to make money. If they were and if they could, this wouldn't exist.

I don't buy anything begrudgingly and I never said it was a problem, let alone someone elses. Consider it a joyous donation. I'm not mad that Nintendo overcharges for VC games. I'm not Jim Sterling. I'm just not oblivious to the fact that they absolutely do and have.

Illegal activity doesn't make the product less than what they're perceived, using piracy to back your stance is such a flawed notion because if people could they'd want everything for free even newly released games but that doesn't mean their value is 0 and the market didn't change to accomodate that no they changed to take advantage of the rise in new tech to have a platform that retains a userbase as it's the business model that has the most reach and efficiency.

The entire subscription is actually a signal of a change in direction and approach to business as the subscription will cover a range of things not just VC nowhere at any point does it signal the games not being worth what people bought them for because believe me people would still buy them if they weren't available in the subscription.

Much like what someone earliar said PS1 games like FFVII which are just as old and sold for £10 - £12 on PSN and even Steam yet we don't get the same over charging calls in those cases, when some one using the overcharging argument is shown how much it legitimately costs to buy some of the older games we get them turning to piracy to try and back their notion the latter of which is amusingly flawed because it's like someone saying they shouldn't have to pay for an iPhone because their mate robbed a batch of the back of a truck.

It does when it effects the market place.

The subcription does cover a range off things, including the decreasing viability of overcharging for nearly valueless idividual classic games.

Your "robbed a batch off the back of a truck" argument doesn't hold up because that doesn't effect market value at all. If there were hundreds of untraceable factories making billions of perfect replicas each of the newest iphone the same day, and sometimes hours/days before the real thing came out and were just 1-day shipping those out for free to anyone at $0 and with potentially 0 traceability, you'd better bet your bottom dollar it would effect the value of the iPhone. That is literally scale of the impact piracy has had on the market place. Pretending that it hasn't when no company is ignoring it is silly. And this is as much an issue for Sony and Microsoft and Valve as it is for Nintendo. This is a Nintendo thread about Nintendo's games. I didn't realize it was necessary to shade them here to prove I'm being fairly critical.



Around the Network
Frogger on 02 June 2017
RolStoppable said:

Poor analysis.

;-(



SuperNova on 02 June 2017

Eh.....I guess I'm fine with this. Definitively glad that they changed to game library instead of monthly game.

I'd still prefer free online of course, but 20$ a year is not terrible.



Frogger on 02 June 2017

Famitsu just confirmed that VC and this subscription model are not the same thing, rendering many points in this thread, mine included, invalid.

AKA Great new is no longer great news.



Pavolink on 02 June 2017

Good.



Proud to be the first cool Nintendo fan ever

Number ONE Zelda fan in the Universe

DKCTF didn't move consoles

Prediction: No Zelda HD for Wii U, quietly moved to the succesor

Predictions for Nintendo NX and Mobile


Pyro as Bill on 02 June 2017
spemanig said:

Famitsu just confirmed that VC and this subscription model are not the same thing, rendering many points in this thread, mine included, invalid.

AKA Great new is no longer great news.

So VC is either years away or it's going to be another drip feed given that SNES games are still under construction. I think I'll avoid VC until Nintendo confirms they're permanently tied to an account.



Nov 2016 - NES outsells PS1 (JP)

Don't Play Stationary 4 ever. Switch!