Free Basic Online/Paid Premium Concept

[Room100]

Reposting to a new thread since the other thread is probably going down soon:

Everyone agrees that free is good. Some people don't mind paying, some people do. But let's say Nintendo set up two methods of online play:

1. Free online play, P2P, maybe/maybe not voice chat
2. Paid "Premium/Pro" subscription ($20-30/year for one person)

What would have to be a part of the paid option for you to choose that? Guaranteed dedicated servers? Voice chat? Virtual Console/expanding Netflix-style classic gaming? Special in-game options/customization? Offers/deals?

Furthermore, what would NSO need to bring to Smash to make you interested in paying Premium, or paying for the current NSO deal as-is at all?

 

[Luigifan18]

It would have helped to include a link to “that other thread”, for the sake of those who didn't notice it. (Also so people know exactly which thread you’re referring to.)

 

[Frizz]

Guaranteed dedicated servers - Definitely yes. I mostly play online, so reliable connection is a must-have for me. Especially since I use Wi-Fi for internet access instead of Ethernet. Lag is never fun, as it disrupts me from completely immersing myself in the game.
Voice chat - No. I don't really use voice chat pretty much anywhere. I'd much rather chat on Steam or Discord.
Virtual Console - Not entirely sure. I don't really play retro games. I'd probably play a few Fire Emblem games, and that's it. Probably not.
Special in-game options/customization - This is a tricky one. I don't really like purchasing games that have certain options or content locked behind a paywall, but I don't want to pay for online with potentially unguaranteed dedicated servers just for content that should've been accessible right from the start anyway. If it came with something else, maybe I'd consider premium.
Offers/deals - Yes. Saving money is always great, especially on games that you've always wanted to buy.

$20 a year is hard to argue against, so I'd probably purchase NSO as is, but I definitely wouldn't mind seeing some minor improvements.

 

[Room100]

It would have helped to include a link to “that other thread”, for the sake of those who didn't notice it. (Also so people know exactly which thread you’re referring to.)

That's fair, sorry! I figured that this topic was enough of a non sequitur that bringing people back to that thread wouldn't really be conducive.

 

[Room100]

Oh for the record: this isn't a complaint about NSO's price, I'm totally fine paying for it. Just was curious about this alternative and what people think of it.

 

[Luigifan18]

"That other thread" is limping on like a zombie, mainly because Crazy Hand 2001 is driving it into the ground with his stubborn insistence on making it an echo chamber where everybody is in eternal agreement with him, has no opinions of their own, regards him as a genius fit to rule them, and hates Nintendo and its online service forever and ever and ever. Let's discuss Nintendo Online here instead. Crazy Hand 2001 is not welcome, as he has ruined the value of his opinions forever by being an immature brat.

 

[Crazy Hand 2001]

"That other thread" is limping on like a zombie, mainly because Crazy Hand 2001 is driving it into the ground with his stubborn insistence on making it an echo chamber where everybody is in eternal agreement with him, has no opinions of their own, regards him as a genius fit to rule them, and hates Nintendo and its online service forever and ever and ever. Let's discuss Nintendo Online here instead. Crazy Hand 2001 is not welcome, as he has ruined the value of his opinions forever by being an immature brat.

I do not hate NIntendo, but I do not condemn paying for online since it's a fact there's nothing to pay for. There's really nothing for Nintendo to improve and the only reason they're charging is because people like you will just accept it.

If nintendo provided dedicated servers I wouldn't care much but all they're doing is sitting on their ass waiting for us to give them money like they're a panhandler.

I'm stating everything as a fact. It's not my opinion.

 

[Luigifan18]

I do not hate NIntendo, but I do not condemn paying for online since it's a fact there's nothing to pay for. There's really nothing for Nintendo to improve and the only reason they're charging is because people like you will just accept it.

If nintendo provided dedicated servers I wouldn't care much but all they're doing is sitting on their *** waiting for us to give them money like they're a panhandler.

I'm stating everything as a fact. It's not my opinion.

It is your opinion, and your obliviousness to the difference between fact and opinion means that you are not welcome here. Go back to your echo chamber.

 

[Izanagi97]

I'm just going for the wait and see approach with this. If it's worth it by December, I'll probably get a Switch. If it isn't, I'll just use the money for a new computer (assuming I can get one)

It is your opinion, and your obliviousness to the difference between fact and opinion means that you are not welcome here. Go back to your echo chamber.

I'm honestly amazed his thread didn't get locked yet.

 

[Crazy Hand 2001]

It is your opinion, and your obliviousness to the difference between fact and opinion means that you are not welcome here. Go back to your echo chamber.

No, it's certainly a fact. Look up YouTube to see how many people are telling you not to pay for online, be it Microsoft, Sony or Nintendo. Everyone knows it's peer to peer servers because there's nothing to improve on the online.

And if Nintendo was showing any kinds of improvement they wouldn't have made Super Mario Party online the way it is now. That kind of online play indicates that they don't care about improving and only want money.

 

[Crazy Hand 2001]

And after reading the original post I want to add that if Nintendo made the online free but subscribers got additional benefits such as NES games I wouldn't care whatsoever how many people subscribe.

 

[Room100]

No, it's certainly a fact. Look up YouTube to see how many people are telling you not to pay for online, be it Microsoft, Sony or Nintendo. Everyone knows it's peer to peer servers because there's nothing to improve on the online.

And if Nintendo was showing any kinds of improvement they wouldn't have made Super Mario Party online the way it is now. That kind of online play indicates that they don't care about improving and only want money.

To be fair, "It's a fact look it up in YouTube" is kinda sketchy info hahaha. As I said before I still think the payment is more about the customer service and response to issues from employees more than money right to servers, but I don't wanna repeat that back-and-forth again.

And after reading the original post I want to add that if Nintendo made the online free but subscribers got additional benefits such as NES games I wouldn't care whatsoever how many people subscribe.

I feel like it'd be the best outcome for most console online gaming, especially with Nintendo, but I don't think we'd see it until further into the implementation of NSO/if the console market starts doing much worse.

 

[Izanagi97]

To be fair, "It's a fact look it up in YouTube" is kinda sketchy info hahaha. As I said before I still think the payment is more about the customer service and response to issues from employees more than money right to servers, but I don't wanna repeat that back-and-forth again.



I feel like it'd be the best outcome for most console online gaming, especially with Nintendo, but I don't think we'd see it until further into the implementation of NSO/if the console market starts doing much worse.

Probably should avoid trying to argue with that guy, it's kinda been established in at least 2 or 3 other threads regarding online that he is either an idiot or just wants an echo chamber.

 

[Crazy Hand 2001]

To be fair, "It's a fact look it up in YouTube" is kinda sketchy info hahaha. As I said before I still think the payment is more about the customer service and response to issues from employees more than money right to servers, but I don't wanna repeat that back-and-forth again.

well when super mario party only allows one mode to be online it's a strong indication that Nintendo has no dedicated servers. It's a really strong one that they don't care about customer service either.

But you seem like a very intelligent person so I am more than happy to have a calm discussion with you. If I repeat stuff I wouldn't be intentionally doing it.

 

[Luigifan18]

I am sorely regretting tagging Crazy Hand 2001 right about now, but it seems like he might actually try to be reasonable for once? I'll just sit back for now and see how long it lasts...

 

[Room100]

well when super mario party only allows one mode to be online it's a strong indication that Nintendo has no dedicated servers. It's a really strong one that they don't care about customer service either.

I agree that's it's bizarre how they handled SMP but I'd chalk that up to the devs and creative team more than the people behind NSO. I mean, MK8 is great online because it was made well for online, they clearly just had a different level of priority in online MP than we would. The connecting thread between one first-party games online modes and the overall quality and feedback response of NSO is veeeery thin.