Let's hope they use the delay to fix complaints. *cough* phone app requirement *cough* I like the possible idea of adding online components to existing classic titles though!
To me this is perfect planning to position themselves as the best choice for a secondary console while still attaining revenue from online Nintendo fans. Because if you want to play online Forza and Uncharted then you have to pay $60/year for Live + $60/year for PS Plus which is pretty bad. However only adding $20/year to one of those would be more enticing.
| BD82 said: $20 a year is really good, especially if we get decent discounts and games. Just imagine 8 player online multiplayer in the original Super Mario Kart (if they decide to do SNES as well). |
I imagine playing it for roughly 5 minutes before asking myself "why am I playing this old outdated garbage instead of MK8D?" :L
Expected price. Interesting they bumped it to 2018, wasn't it just 6 months previously?
Finally Nintendo is doing something good for the gaming community. Seeing the acrobatics of people who previously praised Nintendo for being the only ones not demanding money for online now trying to defend the decision is entertaining to watch for everyone. And it's free!
If you demand respect or gratitude for your volunteer work, you're doing volunteering wrong.
| Veknoid_Outcast said: Hm, interesting. $20 is a lot more palatable than $60. I know it will be an unpopular opinion, but I'd rather get online-enabled classics like SMB3 than the flotsam and jetsam routinely offered with some competing products. |
I agree. SMB3 and Super Metroid are way more attractive than most of the junk we get on PSN and XBL.
This is great news imo. Only $20/year and the free trial extended to 2018 (i myself was expecting $30, but i will gladly take this price)
Bet with Intrinsic:
The Switch will outsell 3DS (based on VGchartz numbers), according to me, while Intrinsic thinks the opposite will hold true. One month avatar control for the loser's avatar.
| Ka-pi96 said: Do they provide the necessary phone so their online services can be used for that price? If they do... great value! If they don't... fuck that shit! |
It doesn't really matter what the value is though, pay to play is always shitty. It could come with a lump of coal instead and we'd still pay anyway cause we want to play our games. Atleast Nintendo isn't putting in a bunch of superfluous crap to try and justify a $60/year price.
I'm still reluctant anout paying for online services in general, but at least Nintendo seems to be making this a not-so-painful pill to swallow.
"Just for comparison Uncharted 4 was 20x bigger than Splatoon 2. This shows the huge difference between Sony's first-party games and Nintendo's first-party games."
20 a year? No-brainer.
01000110 01101111 01110010 00100000 01001001 01111001 01101111 01101100 01100001 01101000 00100001 00100000 01000110 01101111 01110010 00100000 01000101 01110100 01100101 01110010 01101110 01101001 01110100 01111001 00100001 00100000
Ka-pi96 said:
It really does matter what the value is though. If half the features that I'm paying for are literally unusable since I don't have a phone to use their app on... then that's terrible value! |
Are you saying you're going to give up online play because of that? Regardless I'll rephrase and say that it probably doesn't matter to most whether they buy or not. I do think that the number of people who could be swayed by value is minimal. You either want to play your games online, in which case the extra features are irrelevant, or you don't, where again the extra features wouldn't matter.
About Us |
Terms of Use |
Privacy Policy |
Advertise |
Staff |
Contact
Display As Desktop
Display As Mobile
© 2006-2024 VGChartz Ltd. All rights reserved.
