Nintendo just released information about their online service.

[soviet prince]

Then you wouldn't mind them sending ransomware to your Switch and making you pay $20 to remove said ransomware.
Then you wouldn't mind if someone refused to open the door for you unless you paid them $20 a year
Then you wouldn't mind if emergency vehicles made you pay $20 a year to use their services?

What? You don't want to? They're just providing a service!



Except it's peer to peer, which doesn't cost much. There are no services being provided either.

- I open the door for myself
- if i recall they do charge your insurance for an ambulance ride, and it's a lot more then 20 so I love it to be 20.

in a seriousness those have nothing to do with nintendo charging to use there products service. Your only entitled to the games you bought and your system.

 

[Galgatha]

So you're okay supporting a greedy company right?

Seriously, your attitude in this has been rather pathetic. If you don't like it, simply don't pay. You can still play tons of Smash at home with friends and family. The online function is not needed for the game to be fun.

Also, exactly how old are you to where 20$ for an entire year is too expensive? I already explained how these things are managed earlier on. If you want it to be free, be prepared to see tons of advertisements, or the implementation of a cash shop.

Essentially, your entire thread has been about you ranting, and with very poor analogies to try and make your point. Here is why Nintendo is charging for their online service, other than the simple "they can do what they want".

1) Because their online service is not OWED to you simply because you purchased the Switch, just like how Netflix's streaming library is not OWED to you simply because you pay your internet bill.

2) Despite what you continue to parrot, not all online interactions are peer to peer. There are servers set up for matchmaking, holding matches such as Mario Kart 8 races, and servers set up the provide security to these interactions. Then add on the extra man hours required to maintain these servers, the additional hardware and retail space required to house and hold these servers. Not to mention the additional utility costs to keep these servers running 24/7.

3) Nintendo is not just taking your money to give you an online feature. As it has been explained, there will be multiple other benefits given as well to those who do subscribe to their online service. If you actually think about it, Nintendo could be losing money with these free games offered, and yet they still give it.

4) Price inflation. While the prices of things such as hardware and software for servers may drop due to better technology, other prices related to housing these servers, or paying for the continued upkeep, are not. Depending on where you live, jobs in information technology or Infrastructure maintenance have seen pay raises steadily over the past few years, as it is a rapidly growing career field. This all adds up to more money being spent on a service that prior, they were giving for free. For a company, who's wanting to make a profit to pay their employees, this isn't a good thing.

5) Just because, Nintendo can do what they want with their services. It is their right as a company, to decide if and how they wish to render their services as long as it is not illegal. Which, having customers pay for an online service is not illegal. It is your right as a consumer to not spend your money where you don't see fit. If you truly do not like the service, simply don't pay for it. There is no gun being held to your head forcing you to pay for the online service.

 

[Smash Lampjaw]

My biggest problem is the lag. I rarely if ever played online in Brawl due to it. Smash on the 3DS is... better, and I owe a favour to the tiny devil who had the foresight to tell me to skip the Wii U and wait for Zelda on the NX, so I don't know about its performance that well. I don't mind paying, I worry that I'll never want to use it if it's too laggy. If costs prevent that, sure. I'd rather pay to have fun online than have it borderline unplayable for free.

I like that it gives you access to the library, but I don't see myself using most of what's in it anyway. I either own the originals or have them on Wii's VC.

$20/year isn't bad, either way. It'll probably just be worth that for Smash alone, for me.

 

[Izanagi97]

My biggest problem is the lag. I rarely if ever played online in Brawl due to it. Smash on the 3DS is... better, and I owe a favour to the tiny devil who had the foresight to tell me to skip the Wii U and wait for Zelda on the NX, so I don't know about its performance that well. I don't mind paying, I worry that I'll never want to use it if it's too laggy. If costs prevent that, sure. I'd rather pay have fun online than have it borderline unplayable for free.

I like that it gives you access to the library, but I don't see myself using most of what's in it anyway. I either own the originals or have them on Wii's VC.

$20/year isn't bad, either way. It'll probably just be worth that for Smash alone, for me.

Hell, I won't be surprised if people will be buying Switches purely for Smash (I know it will be the first thing I get once I buy a Switch in December, assuming I can get one)

 

[Crazy Hand 2001]

Seriously, your attitude in this has been rather pathetic. If you don't like it, simply don't pay. You can still play tons of Smash at home with friends and family. The online function is not needed for the game to be fun.

Also, exactly how old are you to where 20$ for an entire year is too expensive? I already explained how these things are managed earlier on. If you want it to be free, be prepared to see tons of advertisements, or the implementation of a cash shop.

Because it's all about how much it costs right? If you're saying "it's only $20, you're poor right?" then prove that you're not poor by giving $20 to charity yourself.
Also, I'm not much of an online gamer but letting Nintendo know it's acceptable to get away with things like this means you're easy to fool.
Please explain why Sakurai removed tripping from Smash 4 after he implemented it in Brawl.
Please explain why Microsoft tried to charge for PC online but ended up not charging.
Please explain why Mario Party Switch went back to old style board gameplay after they seemly abandoned it in the last few games.

Is it because people complained? Yes. So online complainers want to do the same thing.

ALso please explain why we never saw advertisements or cash shop in Wii, DS, Wii U or 3DS online. Please explain why everyone keeps on saying "it's peer to peer" here. https://www.resetera.com/threads/ga...paying-to-play-online-is-100-justified.21413/

 

[Galgatha]

Because it's all about how much it costs right? If you're saying "it's only $20, you're poor right?" then prove that you're not poor by giving $20 to charity yourself.
Also, I'm not much of an online gamer but letting Nintendo know it's acceptable to get away with things like this means you're easy to fool.
Please explain why Sakurai removed tripping from Smash 4 after he implemented it in Brawl.
Please explain why Microsoft tried to charge for PC online but ended up not charging.
Please explain why Mario Party Switch went back to old style board gameplay after they seemly abandoned it in the last few games.

Is it because people complained? Yes. So online complainers want to do the same thing.

ALso please explain why we never saw advertisements or cash shop in Wii, DS, Wii U or 3DS online. Please explain why everyone keeps on saying "it's peer to peer" here. https://www.resetera.com/threads/ga...paying-to-play-online-is-100-justified.21413/

Dude, your not even addressing any of the points I brought up. You are just arguing for the sake of arguing.

Also, don't make assumptions about me. You don't know what I actually do for charity in my daily life.

I can tell your not much of an online gamer, and probably don't understand the vast amount of work and money it takes to run an online service. Which I tried to explain.

Both "points" 1 and 3 don't even apply to this argument. Point 2 is just simply bad because a computer is used to access the internet. You pay for your internet, and you utilize a computer to access it. It makes no sense to pay for something like that, in that manner. That doesn't translate to a gaming company charging for their online service for their gaming systems.

We never saw these things because Nintendo was being rather kind to us, by giving it to us for free. But, their systems were far behind that of the competition, who do charge. A company simply can't keep giving things away for free, otherwise they will go bankrupt. It's simply economics. Learn it.

 

[Deleted member]

Because Nintendo will totally be using the money to support servers right?

Yes. It is extremely likely that they will. You do realize that your claims that they won't are just baseless assumptions without any proof behind them right?

 

[KingDoop]

Yes. It is extremely likely that they will. You do realize that your claims that they won't are just baseless assumptions without any proof behind them right?

Do you have proof that it's "extremely likely"? Genuinely curious, cause Nintendo hasn't said much about all this. Only a few weeks away now and a couple tweets reminding us that this exists is all we've gotten. None of which btw mention anything about improving anything. So going by your logic of not making assumptions without proof, there is no proof of them doing anything but pocketing the money.

 

[Deleted member]

Do you have proof that it's "extremely likely"? Genuinely curious, cause Nintendo hasn't said much about all this. Only a few weeks away now and a couple tweets reminding us that this exists is all we've gotten. None of which btw mention anything about improving anything. So going by your logic of not making assumptions without proof, there is no proof of them doing anything but pocketing the money.

Technically speaking, yes, neither statement has proof behind it. But there are a few games on Switch that need some improvement in the realm of online play. To assume that they won't put the money towards improving the servers at all just isn't realistic. They're not going to just "pocket the money". They'll be using it for something.

 

[soviet prince]

nintendo needs to do a direct soon

 

[Izanagi97]

nintendo needs to do a direct soon

Welp, we got the Nindies direct happening in a few days and the online stuff will likely be in September if I had to guess

 

[Smash Lampjaw]

I'm pretty sure we'll be told more just before they launch it.

 

[DarthEnderX]

If they could roll my Pokemon Bank subscription into this service, I'd be totally on board.

 

[Crazy Hand 2001]

We never saw these things because Nintendo was being rather kind to us, by giving it to us for free. But, their systems were far behind that of the competition, who do charge. A company simply can't keep giving things away for free, otherwise they will go bankrupt. It's simply economics. Learn it.

I bet this website costs more than Nintendo's online servers and yet we aren't being charged to use it.

As for your previous 5 points, point 5 is basically "they can do whatever they want if it's not illegal".
Point 1 doesn't really say much. A parking spot is not "owed" to us, but we aren't being charged to use it.
Points 2 and 4 you really seem to underestimate how much servers cost. Especially after I linked to this website. All their online servers are basically included in the price of the game so it's why they never charged us for online in the past.
https://www.resetera.com/threads/ga...paying-to-play-online-is-100-justified.21413/
Point 3 does not mean a service is being provided. If providing irrelevant things is a service then your grocery store denying you parking spaces, grocery bags and shopping carts unless you pay the $20 for a "cleaning service lady" is a service too.

Technically speaking, yes, neither statement has proof behind it. But there are a few games on Switch that need some improvement in the realm of online play. To assume that they won't put the money towards improving the servers at all just isn't realistic. They're not going to just "pocket the money". They'll be using it for something.

And what is the money being used for? Matchmaking servers? They hardly cost anything.
Servers for actual online? Too bad it's peer to peer so Nintendo doesn;t have to pay for anything

 

[Smash Lampjaw]

I bet this website costs more than Nintendo's online servers and yet we aren't being charged to use it.

Websites get funding from advertisers, and people with premium accounts do pay for extra features if they want to help support the site, which is completely optional, much like playing online.

A parking spot is not "owed" to us, but we aren't being charged to use it.

I pay for parking everyday. I think a lot of people do, especially people who live in or travel to a city.

If providing irrelevant things is a service then your grocery store denying you parking spaces, grocery bags and shopping carts unless you pay the $20 for a "cleaning service lady" is a service too.

That's exactly what tax is. Bags cost 5 cents where I live, and I also have to put a quarter in shopping carts to use them.

 

[Crazy Hand 2001]

Websites get funding from advertisers, and people with premium accounts do pay for extra features if they want to help support the site, which is completely optional, much like playing online.


I pay for parking everyday. I think a lot of people do, especially people who live in or travel to a city.


That's exactly what tax is. Bags cost 5 cents where I live, and I also have to put a quarter in shopping carts to use them.

You get the quarter back though right?

 

[awert]

This change sucks. It was never really okay even when the other companies did it. There are no signs that Nintendo is going to improve their internet service either. Very few people care about the 30 year old NES games. The least they could do is offer SNES, GBA, or N64 games, but they don't have to when they can just still market off of nostalgia like they've been doing for the last ~20 years. And don't get me started on putting save backups behind a paywall. There is no defending that whatsoever.

If you defend this, you're just telling Nintendo it's ok to cheap us out of our money, so they'll keep doing it. This is how it starts, they make you pay a small fee and throw in a few more games to make you think "ok, it's not too bad" and then slowly they raise the price, and put more important features of the console behind the paywall. Then in a few years before you know it, you're paying the same amount that you'd pay for Sony or Microsoft except with a worse online service and 20 NES games that you get bored playing after 3 minutes.

They need to explain their plans for online as soon as possible. We pay for the console, we pay for the games. At this point, we don't owe them any more as consumers. An online fee is only justified if there are real benefits for subscribing, not just "hey this is stuff you had before but pay for it now".

 

[soviet prince]

This change sucks. It was never really okay even when the other companies did it. There are no signs that Nintendo is going to improve their internet service either. Very few people care about the 30 year old NES games. The least they could do is offer SNES, GBA, or N64 games, but they don't have to when they can just still market off of nostalgia like they've been doing for the last ~20 years. And don't get me started on putting save backups behind a paywall. There is no defending that whatsoever.

If you defend this, you're just telling Nintendo it's ok to cheap us out of our money, so they'll keep doing it. This is how it starts, they make you pay a small fee and throw in a few more games to make you think "ok, it's not too bad" and then slowly they raise the price, and put more important features of the console behind the paywall. Then in a few years before you know it, you're paying the same amount that you'd pay for Sony or Microsoft except with a worse online service and 20 NES games that you get bored playing after 3 minutes.

They need to explain their plans for online as soon as possible. We pay for the console, we pay for the games. At this point, we don't owe them any more as consumers. An online fee is only justified if there are real benefits for subscribing, not just "hey this is stuff you had before but pay for it now".

but you don't pay for online, your only entitled to the switch you bought

 

[Crazy Hand 2001]

but you don't pay for online, your only entitled to the switch you bought

Then Nintendo is entitled to our money too right?

 

[Smash Lampjaw]

Then Nintendo is entitled to our money too right?

Yes - If you want access to an additional service they provide.

 

[soviet prince]

Then Nintendo is entitled to our money too right?

yep nintendo is a business not a charity.

 

[Pit93]

Yes - If you want access to an additional service they provide.

If they actually provided a service, maybe that'd be right, but their online-mode is still peer to peer, so in the end, it's more provided by US than by them...

 

[Verde Coeden Scalesworth]

If they actually provided a service, maybe that'd be right, but their online-mode is still peer to peer, so in the end, it's more provided by US than by them...

It's a service that isn't part of the natural console options. It's a separated service that somebody else has to program and give you outside of the general Switch itself. This isn't what you paid for when you bought the Switch. You solely bought the console and all it came with, physically, and any data programmed in. Online has never been part of this, as it's different people creating a new service for you.

This is fair to charge for. It doesn't matter who the provider is as long as it's completely legal/agreed upon with Nintendo and the provider. It doesn't matter if a separate US company provides it. It's not a free service and they are people with a job to do that works to make the online work for us. You don't think people are going to constantly work for free when things cost money for them too, do you?

At least 20 dollars a years is pretty good.

 

[Pit93]

It's a service that isn't part of the natural console options. It's a separated service that somebody else has to program and give you outside of the general Switch itself.

Which should be covered by the games I buy for which this stuff is programmed for. If there actually were dedicated servers used for Nintendo's online, that needed continued maintenance, etc., then I'd agree with you on some level, but not like this.

I might have even paid for this Lagfest (because 20€ isn't that bad) but as long as there's stuff bundled into the price that I don't want to pay for, I won't buy it (it's the same with Sony for me. Too much unnecessary stuff that I'm not willing to give them my money for).

 

[Verde Coeden Scalesworth]

Which should be covered by the games I buy for which this stuff is programmed for. If there actually were dedicated servers used for Nintendo's online, that needed continued maintenance, etc., then I'd agree with you on some level, but not like this.

No, they shouldn't. That's a bad idea because you're literally paying for what's on the game's data only. You never will be paying the company of a game for online outside of later on. I.E. DLC content. They can't provide you online. Buying games doesn't even work that way; you're paying for the right to play the content within the coding of the game. No more, no less.

I might have even paid for this Lagfest (because 20€ isn't that bad) but as long as there's stuff bundled into the price that I don't want to pay for, I won't buy it (it's the same with Sony for me. Too much unnecessary stuff that I'm not willing to give them my money for).

I agree that the online services having mediocre bonuses at best with those whole "you can play a few games online" instead of a proper VC etc. is bad, yeah. It doesn't feel worth it other than the fact you're paying for the right to play online on that particular system. You're basically paying them for internet usage. You don't get free internet either. Same thing here. Probably a good way to look at it.

 

[Fell God]

I bet this website costs more than Nintendo's online servers and yet we aren't being charged to use it.

Er, they have ad revenue and premium accounts...

 

[Verde Coeden Scalesworth]

Er, they have ad revenue and premium accounts...

This so much. We have ways that it's being paid for. Ad stuff, Premium, as noted.

Let's not pretend this website is run for truly free. Most sites have ads due to that alone. They require costs. Our own admins worked hard while not being paid, but this is also something they choose to do. It costs money for the website itself to be ran, yeah. But no user is being forced to pay for it since the creation of this website was chosen and it's not an actual business, unlike Nintendo. That's the problem with this whole comparison Crazy Hand 2001 is making. They're completely incomparable.

 

[Crazy Hand 2001]

It's a service that isn't part of the natural console options. It's a separated service that somebody else has to program and give you outside of the general Switch itself. This isn't what you paid for when you bought the Switch. You solely bought the console and all it came with, physically, and any data programmed in. Online has never been part of this, as it's different people creating a new service for you.

This is fair to charge for. It doesn't matter who the provider is as long as it's completely legal/agreed upon with Nintendo and the provider. It doesn't matter if a separate US company provides it. It's not a free service and they are people with a job to do that works to make the online work for us. You don't think people are going to constantly work for free when things cost money for them too, do you?

At least 20 dollars a years is pretty good.

I think when the previous guy is saying that WE are providing the online ourselves because it's peer to peer. Not any other companies. "US" did not mean "USA".

 

[Crazy Hand 2001]

yep nintendo is a business not a charity.

Doesn't that make us charity since all Nintendo is doing is putting a lock to the online and charging us to remove the lock?

 

[Pit93]

I think when the previous guy is saying that WE are providing the online ourselves because it's peer to peer. Not any other companies. "US" did not mean "USA".

Of course. Because Nintendo uses peer to peer, we are the ones that actually provide the infrastructure that Nintendo uses for their online-modes. Sure they have to do the initial coding and probably do some maintenance now and then but concerning the cost, there's no way I'll believe that Nintendo needs a fee to keep it "running". The only thing they have running are servers for matchmaking, that's it.

 

[KingDoop]

No, they shouldn't. That's a bad idea because you're literally paying for what's on the game's data only. You never will be paying the company of a game for online outside of later on. I.E. DLC content. They can't provide you online. Buying games doesn't even work that way; you're paying for the right to play the content within the coding of the game. No more, no less.

Alright I'm no tech expert but I know that's not true. Games are nothing but code being run. So when I bought splatoon and played online day 1 it's cause Nintendo programmed that function into the coding of the game a long time beforehand.

 

[Verde Coeden Scalesworth]

Alright I'm no tech expert but I know that's not true. Games are nothing but code being run. So when I bought splatoon and played online day 1 it's cause Nintendo programmed that function into the coding of the game a long time beforehand.

The point is online isn't automatically in that coding. If it's not in the coding, they have a right to charge for a new service. I admit that wasn't clear and I forgot that, so that's my bad.

I think when the previous guy is saying that WE are providing the online ourselves because it's peer to peer. Not any other companies. "US" did not mean "USA".

We aren't. The companies who make the service are. We are just paying them for another service. One that people work in. It makes sense to pay them for their work. Nintendo basically volunteered manhours towards us to help provide online services for the majority of games(keep in mind there was no online till the Wii, and it was a pretty bad service. Imagine if we had a proper service we paid for. We'd actually have something remotely good, unlike the mediocre(at best) previous services. The Wii U was a step up, but the Switch is the first console to have a good proper online. The DS suffered from this too. The 3DS at least had proper online, but again, they volunteered to give us all these online options overall. They chose to do this work for free. It's why we only paid for specific content we download, including browsers/apps/games/etc. It made sense, but it also is why it wasn't a super good online, just decent enough where there weren't a severe amount of problems. And it's been well known that the online for the 3DS and Wii U have errors quite often. Though not so often that everybody person is guaranteed to run into one, just most. Like server overload. The Nintendo E-shop has been down often, including during the Smash 4 DLC period.

This is not something that is easy to happen when you have more people working on it due to the service costing money, which allows them to hire more to make the service far more valuable overall. Hopefully that clears up my point about why a free online service isn't really a good thing inherently. Paid online in many many cases is beyond often better.

Though as I said before, just getting the ability to play a few games online(and only during that month) is a terrible thing compared to the proper VC. It's not a worthwhile service to care about and a bad selling point. So it's pretty understandable that people aren't interested in paying for online. They aren't being sold well on the idea. Doing stuff like having a proper Virtual Console would help more. As having it launch once you need to pay but having really good deals for the first month of payment would easily get people interested. Paying for online is fair, that said. Doesn't mean Nintendo did a good job of selling the idea at all.

 

[Crazy Hand 2001]

you think xbox and playstation improved their online once it became paid?

 

[soviet prince]

you think xbox and playstation improved their online once it became paid?

don't remember it ever being free

 

[ssbashworld]

IDK i kind of remember xbox live being free in the original xbox era and psn being free early in the ps3's life but i could be wrong about that. I never had either at those points so I could not tell you about improvements.

 

[**Gilgamesh**]

Lets be honest here. Some games are strictly made for online play and other people buy games strictly for the online. I know the only reason why I bought Mario Kart was because of the Online as everyone moved away. Now I have to pay a fee to continue playing the mode that made me buy the game in the first place. It's something to consider that some people only buy a game due to the online aspects.

 

[soviet prince]

Lets be honest here. Some games are strictly made for online play and other people buy games strictly for the online. I know the only reason why I bought Mario Kart was because of the Online as everyone moved away. Now I have to pay a fee to continue playing the mode that made me buy the game in the first place. It's something to consider that some people only buy a game due to the online aspects.

just like anything, like a computer game sometimes you got to buy the more exp computer to buy said game

 

[Luigifan18]

Can we impose a gag order on Crazy Hand 2001 regarding Nintendo Online?

 

[Izanagi97]

Can we impose a gag order on Crazy Hand 2001 regarding Nintendo Online?

What the hell, why did you revive a month old thread?

 

[Luigifan18]

What the hell, why did you revive a month old thread?

Because the thread Crazy Hand made has devolved into him bashing Nintendo Online and anybody who defends Nintendo or their business practices, and the discussion of NSO needs to be moved to a thread not occupied by a monomaniac.