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

Forums - Nintendo Discussion - What the literal heck Nintendo?!?

S.Peelman said:

The idea of offering DLC in the premium online plan isn't so bad actually. If it was a global thing; all DLC (or well, all normal ones, I guess huge game expansions wouldn't be smart business-wise). For this offering yeah it's a pretty steep price. But then again I don't even pay the normal price.

it doesn't need to be all DLC, just nintendo DLC (as trying to get other complanies' DLC inside such a method would be really hard when the main income of a lot of gaming companies are DLC these days, main game is just to recuperate dev costs)



Around the Network
Captain_Yuri said:



Everyone else: Pay $60 a year and get 2-3 modern games per month
Nintendo: Pay $50 a year to play 30 year old games

And only about two of them per month, at the rate they released NES/SNES games.



Chrkeller said:
DonFerrari said:

You can bet it will make profit, just like PS+ did, XBL and several other stuff that used to be "free" but got a major wallpay and people swolled it.

Yep.  PSN in particularly bothers me, because souls is my 2nd favorite franchise and I like just jumping online randomly, but hate having to pay for it.  Really I just don't play online via souls as much as I would like because I refuse to pay for PSN.  Online should be free for low volume online gamers such as myself, but it will never happen.  

Nintendo charging for subscription doesn't bother me, because of the VC titles I have on other systems.  I'm just thankful I already own the games.  Subscriptions aren't my thing, though it is the future.  

Only a matter of time before new AAA releases are subscriptions.  

Totally agree with you.

PS+ for me I sub because of the collection of games gave during the year plus the step discount for little older games... right now I`m at 12 PS5, 195 PS4 free games on PSN, plus over another 200 that I either bought or were gifted by Sony. But I haven`t touched the Multiplayers on it.

So yes, something like Gamepass is nice service (even though I don`t like the type of direction that can lead), but at least it works similar to a rental, you pay per month and can pick and use whatever is available. Paying for online or to much for old titles (I do like those 30 titles collection on a midia though) is bad for me.



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."

Chrkeller said:

The question isn't if it is overpriced, but more will people pay for it? If people pay for it, at the end of the day it is a good business decision.

I hate that this is probably the most intelligent and reasonable post in the whole thread. Because even though I hate it, I still want it. there are 8 people on my family plan, and if each of us pitch in a wee bit extra, we ALL get the new features. It WILL be worth it on the family plan. It's NOT worth it on the single plan. 



My Console Library:

PS5, Switch

PS4, PS3, PS2, PS1, WiiU, Wii, GCN, N64 SNES, XBO, 360

3DS, DS, GBA, Vita, PSP, Android

Top 6 this generation: 
Bloodborne, Sekiro: Shadows Die Twice, God of War, The Legend of Zelda: Breath of the Wild, Dark Souls III, Red Dead Redemption II, Rock Band 4

burninmylight said:
CaptainExplosion said:

Never thought of it that way either. I don't have kids of my own, but every so often I have my cousin's kids over for tutoring, so it'd be nice to introduce them to N64 games in their spare time.

Your cousin's kids: "Captain, why are you making us play these ugly, blurry games that run like a slideshow with antiquated gameplay mechanics?"

*punches through burninmylight's throat and sever his spine* Well excuuuuuse me for wanting to introduce today's generation to classics. Better that they learn what good games are instead of wasting their time on tablets.



Around the Network

Someone explain to me how exactly this benefits people who (a) want to purchase the Animal Crossing DLC separately or (b) people who don't even own AC. Because it sure feels like I'm either missing something or this is one of the worst business decisions I've seen a company make since Battlefront 2's whole loot box fiasco.



Medisti said:

Someone explain to me how exactly this benefits people who (a) want to purchase the Animal Crossing DLC separately or (b) people who don't even own AC. Because it sure feels like I'm either missing something or this is one of the worst business decisions I've seen a company make since Battlefront 2's whole loot box fiasco.

You're missing nothing, this is a stupid business decision on Nintendo's part. They went full Disney. -_-



Medisti said:

Someone explain to me how exactly this benefits people who (a) want to purchase the Animal Crossing DLC separately or (b) people who don't even own AC. Because it sure feels like I'm either missing something or this is one of the worst business decisions I've seen a company make since Battlefront 2's whole loot box fiasco.

As was said earlier, it feels like the Animal Crossing DLC might have been a last-minute throw-in for some damage control. Because despite how popular AC is, there are still a lot more Switch owners who don't own the game than who do.

Wouldn't it make more sense to do something like, having DLC from several different games to choose from? Like, you could choose between AC, one (or heck, be a real champ and do both, Nintendo) of the fighter passes from Smash, or all of the Breath of the Wild DLC? Between those three very popular games, you'd be covering much more of your base.

And every year, allow the subscriber to get another free DLC package for renewing the subscription from not only those games (and other games like Xenoblade 2), but for games released during that annual period as well. I mean, we all know that Hyrule Warriors is going to get a season pass, and there's no reason to think Botw2 won't follow the format of its predecessor.

Feels like that would soften the blow and justify the price hike somewhat.



Runa216 said:
Chrkeller said:

The question isn't if it is overpriced, but more will people pay for it? If people pay for it, at the end of the day it is a good business decision.

I hate that this is probably the most intelligent and reasonable post in the whole thread. Because even though I hate it, I still want it. there are 8 people on my family plan, and if each of us pitch in a wee bit extra, we ALL get the new features. It WILL be worth it on the family plan. It's NOT worth it on the single plan. 

If Nintendo put more DLC passes/expansions in this thing, it would start to actually be worth it, and for people who have the Family plan it might even be more worth it, because it means you'd be able to share the DLC with just one account, instead of having to buy the damn things several times. I mean, who the hell does that is another story, but for those few that do, 80 dollars is actually very nice. This is if Nintendo indeed provides more DLC content aside from New Horizons'. 



My bet with The_Liquid_Laser: I think the Switch won't surpass the PS2 as the best selling system of all time. If it does, I'll play a game of a list that The_Liquid_Laser will provide, I will have to play it for 50 hours or complete it, whatever comes first. 

Word is out why the Expansion Switch online is 50$ , culprit Wii VC low sales . Licenses costs.



Cute and honest Sega Saturn fan, also noone should buy Sega grrrr, Sega for life.