Trouble! Smash Ultimate Embraces Pre-Order DLC

[EricTheGamerman]

Do you just have problem with all DLC? Cause if so, sorry, you're in the wrong industry these days. DLC is a standard, and the way Nintendo is doing it is probably the best possible way with still being reasonable. You can talk about how these practices prey upon the Smash community because they will almost always buy the post-release content like stages and fighters, and this is true. But that's an active decision.

You may not be satisfied with Ultimate, you may not think it's worth the $60 personally, but sorry, content wise this is about three or four fighting games worth. Most fighting games rip characters out and sell them back to you at a later date. Ultimate can't do that because it already included all the characters in the base game. Not that Sakurai has ever done anything but work to completion before seriously considering DLC. The Piranha Plant just wasn't completely ready for this game (Again a game with 75 characters and 103 stages in the time of games like Street Fighter V that launched with 16 and absolutely nothing to do), so he's a later addition of DLC (Not a freebie, I do see this thrown around, he's free as incentive but should be treated as any other DLC).

They can include more fighters in the game by creating DLC, ultimately satisfying more fans. They're charging $6 each for a fighter, stage, and music. Two of those things are the biggest possible inclusions for Smash, and this allows them to support the game after launch with new content that can excite people. The Fighters Pass is even optional and Sakurai did the unspeakable in telling people to actually THINK before buying their pass without revealing the content. He seemed to lament the fact he couldn't show things off. And even then, the Fighters Pass is just an option for people who were going to buy all the characters anyway and can save $5 in the process.

DLC isn't a bad thing on it's own. It's a bad thing when the game is chopped up and resold to the consumer to earn more money. It's a bad thing when they don't offer a complete game at launch. It's a bad thing when it becomes microtransaction hell despite the $60 price tag. So far, Nintendo is doing DLC correctly with Smash in a completely fair way.

If you hate DLC, that's one thing, but it doesn't make it inherently troublesome. Nintendo is doing DLC reasonably to support their game and continue adding content. They actually delivered a full game, and are deciding to give you the first DLC for free if you adopt early. Nintendo as a whole has spoken to not wanting to incorporate microtransactions in their full games, and as long as the primary people of the old guard like Miyamoto and Sakurai himself are around, they won't let that happen.

And you could fear-monger all you want on what DLC could become, but it's not for now and Nintendo doesn't have the reputation AT ALL to back up such an idea.

 

[ｐｓ＿]

I predict within four years we'll see Smash Bros. "rebooted" to include the core 8 fighters, with every other character requiring gacha grind-or-pay to access.

But until then I'll enjoy what we have. Ridley, K. Rool and Dark Samus are already baseline so there's no reason for me to ever buy a character (I didn't buy any for Wii-U either.)

 

[Mecakoto]

I predict within four years we'll see Smash Bros. "rebooted" to include the core 8 fighters, with every other character requiring gacha grind-or-pay to access.

But until then I'll enjoy what we have. Ridley, K. Rool and Dark Samus are already baseline so there's no reason for me to ever buy a character (I didn't buy any for Wii-U either.)

To the former, Why? That's not Nintendo's MO.

 

[ｐｓ＿]

To the former, Why? That's not Nintendo's MO.

Paid DLC wasn't Nintendo's MO. Paying for online access wasn't Nintendo's MO. Licensing characters to terrible phone games wasn't their MO. Filing SLAPP lawsuits against fan creations wasn't Nintendo's MO. Trying to sell you cardboard for $80 wasn't Nintendo's MO.

 

[Mecakoto]

Paid DLC wasn't Nintendo's MO. Paying for online access wasn't Nintendo's MO. Licensing characters to terrible phone games wasn't their MO. Filing SLAPP lawsuits against fan creations wasn't Nintendo's MO. Trying to sell you cardboard for $80 wasn't Nintendo's MO.

Aww... Was hoping for something engaging. Instead we get a classic, the "Slippery slope" fallacy. Too bad.

Paid DLC and paid online access are just advancements in the industry. Both are justifiable within their own means. DLC = Longevity while covering dev costs. Example: Borderlands 2 lasted for years after when it should of died due to DLC. That was DLC done right, and Nintendo hasn't been too bad in that regard. Online access can be supported via server infrastructure costs. Those have existed for years upon years. Consoles didn't even start that trend, but, in a modern age, they also make sense and it's not like we're talking MMO subscription rates here. The price Nintendo charges is far imo.

Not sure about the licensing to mobile games, so I won't speak on it. For Lawsuits, that has been most company's MOs and has always been Nintendo's MO. You can't just let your property be used freely unless you're ok with that property being potentially lost. There are ramifications for allowing a property to be used freely and I think most people can understand that.

Finally, for the 80$ peripheral... Meh. They are trying something unique, which has always been Nintendo's MO. It's no different from other companies trying silly, unique things to draw people in.

Reasonable explanations to how things are currently. Thanks for reading. Don't respond, because I don't care. If you open how you did, you're not looking for a discussion. Your mind is made up and discussion is impossible. I'm mostly responding so anyone who happens across the thread can see how silly you've been.

 

[staindgrey]

Aww... Was hoping for something engaging. Instead we get a classic, the "Slippery slope" fallacy. Too bad.

Paid DLC and paid online access are just advancements in the industry. Both are justifiable within their own means. DLC = Longevity while covering dev costs. Example: Borderlands 2 lasted for years after when it should of died due to DLC. That was DLC done right, and Nintendo hasn't been too bad in that regard. Online access can be supported via server infrastructure costs. Those have existed for years upon years. Consoles didn't even start that trend, but, in a modern age, they also make sense and it's not like we're talking MMO subscription rates here. The price Nintendo charges is far imo.

Not sure about the licensing to mobile games, so I won't speak on it. For Lawsuits, that has been most company's MOs and has always been Nintendo's MO. You can't just let your property be used freely unless you're ok with that property being potentially lost. There are ramifications for allowing a property to be used freely and I think most people can understand that.

Finally, for the 80$ peripheral... Meh. They are trying something unique, which has always been Nintendo's MO. It's no different from other companies trying silly, unique things to draw people in.

Reasonable explanations to how things are currently. Thanks for reading. Don't respond, because I don't care. If you open how you did, you're not looking for a discussion. Your mind is made up and discussion is impossible. I'm mostly responding so anyone who happens across the thread can see how silly you've been.

I didn't expect such a thorough and well-informed post from someone with a Shaq-specifically-when-he-was-a-Sun avatar. But that's what I get for making assumptions.

I have nothing to add. Everything you said is spot-on and what I wanted to say.

 

[Fell God]

Paid DLC wasn't Nintendo's MO. Paying for online access wasn't Nintendo's MO. Licensing characters to terrible phone games wasn't their MO. Filing SLAPP lawsuits against fan creations wasn't Nintendo's MO. Trying to sell you cardboard for $80 wasn't Nintendo's MO.

But FEH isn't that bad, I mean it's gotten kinda stale...alright you know what, the main reason we'll never see a Smash Bros in the hell on earth reboot you described is because no one would want it. Who cares if the mechanics are new and fresh when the roster is gone? They'd never be foolish enough to do a reboot because no one wants a reboot.

 

[ｐｓ＿]

Aww... Was hoping for something engaging. Instead we get a classic, the "Slippery slope" fallacy. Too bad.

Paid DLC and paid online access are just advancements in the industry. Both are justifiable within their own means. DLC = Longevity while covering dev costs. Example: Borderlands 2 lasted for years after when it should of died due to DLC. That was DLC done right, and Nintendo hasn't been too bad in that regard. Online access can be supported via server infrastructure costs. Those have existed for years upon years. Consoles didn't even start that trend, but, in a modern age, they also make sense and it's not like we're talking MMO subscription rates here. The price Nintendo charges is far imo.

Not sure about the licensing to mobile games, so I won't speak on it. For Lawsuits, that has been most company's MOs and has always been Nintendo's MO. You can't just let your property be used freely unless you're ok with that property being potentially lost. There are ramifications for allowing a property to be used freely and I think most people can understand that.

Finally, for the 80$ peripheral... Meh. They are trying something unique, which has always been Nintendo's MO. It's no different from other companies trying silly, unique things to draw people in.

Reasonable explanations to how things are currently. Thanks for reading. Don't respond, because I don't care. If you open how you did, you're not looking for a discussion. Your mind is made up and discussion is impossible. I'm mostly responding so anyone who happens across the thread can see how silly you've been.

Yeah, Nintendo "advanced" in the industry alright. They advanced right into the same scam Sony and Microsoft did, where you have to buy a console, a game and online subscription to get the full experience of playing. Then people wonder why consoles are starting to lag behind PC and smartphone gaming.

Here's the "slippery slope" we've already slid down:

• Nintendo online still has terrible netcode. None of your subscription is being spent on servers, it's all peer-to-peer.
• We still have to use third-party smartphones for basic features like voice chat. Everybody else offers this, even Steam. Bonus points to the Nintendo phone app for being resource-hogging, battery-guzzling, buggy, perpetually-hanging garbage.
• No permanent cloud saves. To put it in perspective, the PS4 allows saves on a USB thumb and Microsoft offers cloud saves for free.
• Some games don't get cloud saves at all because Nintendo, being the triple-A developer they are, believes they'll squash cheating by prohibiting them. Never mind the dozens of other ways you can cheat in Splatoon or Dark Souls.
• No games catalog or special offers like Sony/Microsoft do. The best you get is Virtual Console, all of which you could emulate for free at this very moment. I guess offers would stop people from re-purchasing Tropical Freeze for full markup and pretending it's a new game, though.
• All of those Virtual Console games can only be played offline for 7 days. No saving them to your console, because clearly allowing people to keep 30 year-old 8bit titles is just too much loss of profit.
• "Special Offers" for subscribers consist of exclusive gear that you must buy for full markup, making it a glorified advertising platform. No discounts.

Good thing you're a super cool guy who's above it all and won't read this reply, otherwise you'd have to actually have to defend that list of considerable flaws somehow. It's almost as if Nintendo operates on an archaic mindset, can't be bothered to stay competitive in the industry and believes their customers will buy anything. Posters like you prove that assumption correct. Enjoy your $70 cardboard.

 

[osby]

Yeah, Nintendo "advanced" in the industry alright. They advanced right into the same scam Sony and Microsoft did, where you have to buy a console, a game and online subscription to get the full experience of playing. Then people wonder why consoles are starting to lag behind PC and smartphone gaming.

Here's the "slippery slope" we've already slid down:

• Nintendo online still has terrible netcode. None of your subscription is being spent on servers, it's all peer-to-peer.
• We still have to use third-party smartphones for basic features like voice chat. Everybody else offers this, even Steam. Bonus points to the Nintendo phone app for being resource-hogging, battery-guzzling, buggy, perpetually-hanging garbage.
• No permanent cloud saves. To put it in perspective, the PS4 allows saves on a USB thumb and Microsoft offers cloud saves for free.
• Some games don't get cloud saves at all because Nintendo, being the triple-A developer they are, believes they'll squash cheating by prohibiting them. Never mind the dozens of other ways you can cheat in Splatoon or Dark Souls.
• No games catalog or special offers like Sony/Microsoft do. The best you get is Virtual Console, all of which you could emulate for free at this very moment. I guess offers would stop people from re-purchasing Tropical Freeze for full markup and pretending it's a new game, though.
• All of those Virtual Console games can only be played offline for 7 days. No saving them to your console, because clearly allowing people to keep 30 year-old 8bit titles is just too much loss of profit.
• "Special Offers" for subscribers consist of exclusive gear that you must buy for full markup, making it a glorified advertising platform. No discounts.

Good thing you're a super cool guy who's above it all and won't read this reply, otherwise you'd have to actually have to defend that list of considerable flaws somehow. It's almost as if Nintendo operates on an archaic mindset, can't be bothered to stay competitive in the industry and believes their customers will buy anything. Posters like you prove that assumption correct. Enjoy your $70 cardboard.

Wait, I'm confused, does cardboard costs $70 or $80?

 

[Mogisthelioma]

Epic Games and Fortnite aren't really a cash grab, considering everything is entirely cosmetic and optional. You can easily become skilled at the game without paying a single penny. You do make a really good point though with EA and Activision, especially with this entire argument.

My problem with Epic is that the entire cosmetic engine of the game is run by microtransactions.

 

[Kevandre]

There's nothing wrong with the way piranha plant is handled. In addition, people who don't actually understand how game development works are the only people who complain about things like day 1 DLC. It's fine don't worry about it

 

[Kadji100]

Yeah, Nintendo "advanced" in the industry alright. They advanced right into the same scam Sony and Microsoft did, where you have to buy a console, a game and online subscription to get the full experience of playing. Then people wonder why consoles are starting to lag behind PC and smartphone gaming.

Here's the "slippery slope" we've already slid down:

• Nintendo online still has terrible netcode. None of your subscription is being spent on servers, it's all peer-to-peer.
• We still have to use third-party smartphones for basic features like voice chat. Everybody else offers this, even Steam. Bonus points to the Nintendo phone app for being resource-hogging, battery-guzzling, buggy, perpetually-hanging garbage.
• No permanent cloud saves. To put it in perspective, the PS4 allows saves on a USB thumb and Microsoft offers cloud saves for free.
• Some games don't get cloud saves at all because Nintendo, being the triple-A developer they are, believes they'll squash cheating by prohibiting them. Never mind the dozens of other ways you can cheat in Splatoon or Dark Souls.
• No games catalog or special offers like Sony/Microsoft do. The best you get is Virtual Console, all of which you could emulate for free at this very moment. I guess offers would stop people from re-purchasing Tropical Freeze for full markup and pretending it's a new game, though.
• All of those Virtual Console games can only be played offline for 7 days. No saving them to your console, because clearly allowing people to keep 30 year-old 8bit titles is just too much loss of profit.
• "Special Offers" for subscribers consist of exclusive gear that you must buy for full markup, making it a glorified advertising platform. No discounts.

Good thing you're a super cool guy who's above it all and won't read this reply, otherwise you'd have to actually have to defend that list of considerable flaws somehow. It's almost as if Nintendo operates on an archaic mindset, can't be bothered to stay competitive in the industry and believes their customers will buy anything. Posters like you prove that assumption correct. Enjoy your $70 cardboard.

• You know what also uses peer-to-peer? Almost every 1 on 1 fighting game since thats the best practice. And you know very well that Smash is going to use at least some kind of Server infastructure for the Matchmaking. By the way: Netcode in Mario Kart 8 and Mario Tennis is good, I expect the same level of quality for Smash Ultimate (the Netcode in 4 was sh*t though).
• I give you that point, the smartphone app is garbage. But on the bright side it allows to talk with Strangers (at least in Mario Kart 8 Deluxe and Mario Tennis). Having it build into the Switch would have been better, but I gues this is Nintendos way of protecting the children from strangers online (same with missing basic message functionality)
• I don't have a opinion about cloud saves. I understand that people would like a way to back up their saves, but honestly, I never lost a single save on any system, ever. Sucks though that the only option to save your saves is to pay (and even then not every game is supported).
• Sony / Microsoft take more money per month than Nintendo though. And the PS+ lineup, as far as I remember, was not that great during its launch period (correct me if I am wrong and remember that tastes differ). I can not say anything about Microsoft, I have no experience with their Service.
  I would give them a few more month before ******** about the lack of special offers.
• Because using your Smartphone as a hotspot to authorize the NES Classic application (virtual console is dead btw) is so much of a struggle? After the application starts you can turn off your hotspot. I don't see a problem.

 

[Jexulus]

Also, I can hardly imagine Nintendo's board could justify spending a whole lot of money on improving their online during the 12 years they offered online for free. It was a service that didn't directly make them any money, and it's terrible business to pour a whole bunch of money into something that would continue to be an expense and not a source of revenue like hardware and software sales.

In my opinion? They should've started charging for online ages ago so it'd actually be comparable to its competitors.

 

[ｐｓ＿]

• You know what also uses peer-to-peer? Almost every 1 on 1 fighting game since thats the best practice. And you know very well that Smash is going to use at least some kind of Server infastructure for the Matchmaking. By the way: Netcode in Mario Kart 8 and Mario Tennis is good, I expect the same level of quality for Smash Ultimate (the Netcode in 4 was sh*t though).
• I give you that point, the smartphone app is garbage. But on the bright side it allows to talk with Strangers (at least in Mario Kart 8 Deluxe and Mario Tennis). Having it build into the Switch would have been better, but I gues this is Nintendos way of protecting the children from strangers online (same with missing basic message functionality)
• I don't have a opinion about cloud saves. I understand that people would like a way to back up their saves, but honestly, I never lost a single save on any system, ever. Sucks though that the only option to save your saves is to pay (and even then not every game is supported).
• Sony / Microsoft take more money per month than Nintendo though. And the PS+ lineup, as far as I remember, was not that great during its launch period (correct me if I am wrong and remember that tastes differ). I can not say anything about Microsoft, I have no experience with their Service.
  I would give them a few more month before ******** about the lack of special offers.
• Because using your Smartphone as a hotspot to authorize the NES Classic application (virtual console is dead btw) is so much of a struggle? After the application starts you can turn off your hotspot. I don't see a problem.

You're paying a subscription fee to "support server infrastructure cost" (his words, not mine) when there are no servers. Every single Nintendo game is peer-to-peer. I also can't find any information confirming a new server system so it's safe to assume Ultimate will also be P2P. The rest of my points you conceded to or pulled the ol' "well it doesn't bother me" when you, as a consumer, deserve way better than what you're getting right now.

Nintendo was praised pretty heavily for being the only console with free online service. It's sad to see them start to resemble the other big two.

 

[Arthur97]

You're paying a subscription fee to "support server infrastructure cost" (his words, not mine) when there are no servers. Every single Nintendo game is peer-to-peer. I also can't find any information confirming a new server system so it's safe to assume Ultimate will also be P2P. The rest of my points you conceded to or pulled the ol' "well it doesn't bother me" when you, as a consumer, deserve way better than what you're getting right now.

Nintendo was praised pretty heavily for being the only console with free online service. It's sad to see them start to resemble the other big two.

Even if it doesn't use servers, as was already touched upon, if it actually brings in revenue, it gives greater incentive to make it better and to put more effort into it as opposed to "this if free, so its low priority."

 

[ｐｓ＿]

Even if it doesn't use servers, as was already touched upon, if it actually brings in revenue, it gives greater incentive to make it better and to put more effort into it as opposed to "this if free, so its low priority."

"Keep paying us and maybe we'll give you something eventually." How make Kickstarters do you fund out of curiosity?

 

[staindgrey]

Nintendo was praised pretty heavily for being the only console with free online service. It's sad to see them start to resemble the other big two.

Let's not mix our facts here. The price was praised. Not the service.

Nintendo's online service and capabilities have been frustratingly archaic since the DS/Wii and through the 3DS/Wii U. In fact, they shut down all of the servers for the former consoles because they were outsourced and cost them too much to maintain. People assume that just because there aren't dedicated servers for individual games, there aren't servers in general. There are matchmaking servers and digital marketplace servers that cost money to upkeep and maintain, and now that Nintendo has caught up to the rest of the gaming industry in many areas of what they provide-- such as digital day one downloads, cloud saves, an actual friend and lobby system-- they felt that it was necessary to charge for these services.

You can choose not to pay for that service if you no longer want it. But **** costs money, yo.

 

[Arthur97]

"Keep paying us and maybe we'll give you something eventually." How make Kickstarters do you fund out of curiosity?

None, but this is a large corporation, not three guys in a basement. Money talks, and if it says online subscriptions will sell better with better online, then there you go.

 

[ｐｓ＿]

Let's not mix our facts here. The price was praised. Not the service.

Nintendo's online service and capabilities have been frustratingly archaic since the DS/Wii and through the 3DS/Wii U. In fact, they shut down all of the servers for the former consoles because they were outsourced and cost them too much to maintain. People assume that just because there aren't dedicated servers for individual games, there aren't servers in general. There are matchmaking servers and digital marketplace servers that cost money to upkeep and maintain, and now that Nintendo has caught up to the rest of the gaming industry in many areas of what they provide-- such as digital day one downloads, cloud saves, an actual friend and lobby system-- they felt that it was necessary to charge for these services.

You can choose not to pay for that service if you no longer want it. But **** costs money, yo.

What exactly do you think servers are for? According to an interview from 2017 there weren't any servers yet (and there don't appear to be any right now), so anything that "runs well" is entirely due to peer-to-peer connection. The system still uses friend codes too. As far as we can tell any servers that Nintendo requires (if they exist) are already in service, and they don't seem to do anything beyond temporarily store cloud saves. So what are you paying for with this subscription fee?

 

[staindgrey]

What exactly do you think servers are for? According to an interview from 2017 there weren't any servers yet (and there don't appear to be any right now), so anything that "runs well" is entirely due to peer-to-peer connection. The system still uses friend codes too. As far as we can tell any servers that Nintendo requires (if they exist) are already in service, and they don't seem to do anything beyond temporarily store cloud saves. So what are you paying for with this subscription fee?

Let me ask you a very serious question. This isn't meant to belittle or demean your opinion at all, I just want to know before we go any further.

Do you know what a server is.

 

[Arthur97]

What exactly do you think servers are for? According to an interview from 2017 there weren't any servers yet (and there don't appear to be any right now), so anything that "runs well" is entirely due to peer-to-peer connection. The system still uses friend codes too. As far as we can tell any servers that Nintendo requires (if they exist) are already in service, and they don't seem to do anything beyond temporarily store cloud saves. So what are you paying for with this subscription fee?

You know servers have to be maintained, right?

 

[ｐｓ＿]

You know servers have to be maintained, right?

How have they been maintained so far without any subscription fee? What are these servers (if they exist) doing exactly?

 

[staindgrey]

How have they been maintained so far without any subscription fee? What are these servers (if they exist) doing exactly?

A server is just a specialized computer meant to store, send and receive information.

The entire eShop is hosted on a server.
Every game you download, update or redownload from that eShop is hosted on a server.
When Smash launches and millions of people are downloading the game, they will all be downloading them from those servers.
When you search for players to fight against, you will be using a matchmaking server. Peer to peer is was happens after the server has found and connected you to each other.
When you see a friend is online, server.
The news tab on your Switch, server.
Cloud saves, server.

We can have a healthy discussion about the costs of upgrading and maintaining these servers for users-- and whether or not the service Nintendo is providing is worth the price of admission-- once you understand what a server is.

 

[Jovahexeon Joranvexeon]

and it actually becomes free if you earn enough gold coins from your Switch purchases (which I did).

Wait, it does!? Holly holy cow, this is news to me!

 

[staindgrey]

Wait, it does!? Holly holy cow, this is news to me!

Yep! It's a really cool aspect of Nintendo's new online function that doesn't get talked about enough.

The gold coins you earn for any digital purchase or registering your physical purchases can be used as currency in future eShop purchases. Including the online subscription. If you buy a lot of Switch games, the online subscription will eventually just be paid for.

I do the same thing for Xbox Live, because they're desperate for people to use Bing. I get points for every search I make, and by the end of the month I have enough points to roughly pay for a month of Xbox Live.

 

[ｐｓ＿]

A server is just a specialized computer meant to store, send and receive information.

The entire eShop is hosted on a server.
Every game you download, update or redownload from that eShop is hosted on a server.
When Smash launches and millions of people are downloading the game, they will all be downloading them from those servers.
When you search for players to fight against, you will be using a matchmaking server. Peer to peer is was happens after the server has found and connected you to each other.
When you see a friend is online, server.
The news tab on your Switch, server.
Cloud saves, server.

We can have a healthy discussion about the costs of upgrading and maintaining these servers for users-- and whether or not the service Nintendo is providing is worth the price of admission-- once you understand what a server is.

Every single thing you listed was available for free prior, this is the point nobody seems able to refute. At no point did Nintendo claim the free Switch online was temporary. Come to they of it, they didn't demand a subscription to support this stuff when the Wii (a console that sold more and, we'll assume, had more players) was their primary platform. The Wii also offered an online store, friend codes, (bad) matchmaking; it offered everything the Switch does except for a mediocre phone app. Unlike the Gamecube, you can't pretend online console gaming wasn't huge during the Wii's heyday either.

Now suddenly it's imperative you pay for this service to "maintain costs" and not a single person on this forum finds that suspect. They could bump the price up from $20 to 20 grand and you'd probably excuse it, since you don't appear to understand what it is you're paying for: nothing. Keep crying about semantic definitions or whatever.

 

[staindgrey]

Every single thing you listed was available for free prior, this is the point nobody seems able to refute. At no point did Nintendo claim the free Switch online was temporary. Come to they of it, they didn't demand a subscription to support this stuff when the Wii (a console that sold more and, we'll assume, had more players) was their primary platform. The Wii also offered an online store, friend codes, (bad) matchmaking; it offered everything the Switch does except for a mediocre phone app. Unlike the Gamecube, you can't pretend online console gaming wasn't huge during the Wii's heyday either.

Now suddenly it's imperative you pay for this service to "maintain costs" and not a single person on this forum finds that suspect. They could bump the price up from $20 to 20 grand and you'd probably excuse it, since you don't appear to understand what it is you're paying for: nothing. Keep crying about semantic definitions or whatever, you passive-aggressive Nintendo cuckold.

I was looking forward to a discussion with you, but it's very clear now you never intended to have one with me.

Because **** learning new things, right?

 

[Arthur97]

Every single thing you listed was available for free prior, this is the point nobody seems able to refute. At no point did Nintendo claim the free Switch online was temporary. Come to they of it, they didn't demand a subscription to support this stuff when the Wii (a console that sold more and, we'll assume, had more players) was their primary platform. The Wii also offered an online store, friend codes, (bad) matchmaking; it offered everything the Switch does except for a mediocre phone app. Unlike the Gamecube, you can't pretend online console gaming wasn't huge during the Wii's heyday either.

Now suddenly it's imperative you pay for this service to "maintain costs" and not a single person on this forum finds that suspect. They could bump the price up from $20 to 20 grand and you'd probably excuse it, since you don't appear to understand what it is you're paying for: nothing. Keep crying about semantic definitions or whatever, you passive-aggressive Nintendo cuckold.

Uh, yes, they specifically said that we were getting the Switch stuff for free temporarily. Also, just because we got it for free doesn't mean it didn't cost them money to upkeep. So, excuse them for wanting to make this venture profitable.

 

[DBPirate]

The Smash series is a very popular series with a very dedicated group of fans ripe for exploitation.

At this point, I fully expect loot boxes to be patched in later at some point

I really can't tell if you're being serious just based on these two statements alone. There is no pre-order DLC in this game. Piranha Plant is a character you can get for free if you get the game in December or January and the Fighter Pass is just a season pass of sorts. Why the outrage? You are making this game out to be far worse than it is, with both this topic and the "quality or quantity" one.

 

[Sudz]

Keep crying about semantic definitions or whatever, you passive-aggressive Nintendo cuckold.

lol/cringe/yikes

The complaints would be mitigated if there were something to offset them. Like if the base price became lower. Or the online were still free (have we forgotten already or just not played a Switch game online until the game comes out?) Instead Nintendo's bringing out everything at once: Paid online (when it's been free for a year and a half on the same console), a season pass, DLC and plans for future DLC, and expensive special controllers/peripherals. No drowning out or mitigation other than "It's for a game we will almost certainly like". What if the game comes out and it's just okay? Like it's good, but not worth multiple times more than what previous games cost?

They told you online was only going to be temporarily free like 3 months before the Switch released. You're late.

Of course they're doing post-release paid DLC that adds on to an already completed game. The completely optional season pass is included with that, which is a convenience at worst and $5 saved at best. Why is this even a contentious subject? What is the argument?

Expensive special controllers/peripherals? You have the option to pay for wholly unnecessary things that were manufactured using resources, to cater to a specific gaming experience that you may theoretically desire? Neat.

Care to elaborate on how this game could cost multiple times more than what previous games cost?

 

[ｐｓ＿]

I was looking forward to a discussion with you, but it's very clear now you never intended to have one with me.

Because **** learning new things, right?

The only thing I've learned is this forum would fork over their entire life savings for a mediocre product in an instant if Nintendo was the merchant, no matter how infinitesimal or poor quality it was. Go have a circlejerk "discussion" with the rest of the garbage pail kids who actually support paid online, there's plenty in this thread.

lol/cringe/yikes

They told you online was only going to be temporarily free like 3 months before the Switch released. You're late.

Of course they're doing post-release paid DLC that adds on to an already completed game. The completely optional season pass is included with that, which is a convenience at worst and $5 saved at best. Why is this even a contentious subject? What is the argument?

Expensive special controllers/peripherals? You have the option to pay for wholly unnecessary things that were manufactured using resources, to cater to a specific gaming experience that you may theoretically desire? Neat.

Care to elaborate on how this game could cost multiple times more than what previous games cost?

Developers will nickel and dime their customers until they bite back, this is a guarantee. They're always looking for ways to charge you money, even if there's no reason to beyond "our stockholders really like when the zig-zaggy line points up." More to your point, I can absolutely guarantee that any bupkis Reggie feeds you about server fees is a bold-faced lie because, as I said earlier, the Wii had significantly more players and offered virtually everything Switch's online does yet they didn't need to charge you a dime to use it during that console's entire lifespan. Nor the Wii-U's lifespan.

There's been zero valid refutation to any point I've made. There is no reason whatsoever Nintendo needs to charge you for online. All anyone seems able to do is cry about how rude I am, something I must emphasize I couldn't give less of a crap about. If I started to charge you $5 per post, would you just start paying without question because "dude just five bucks lmao"?

 

[Sudz]

More to your point

none of the words following this statement have anything to do with what i said but i'll give you a c for the effort

There's been zero valid refutation to any point I've made.

good thing that bit you replied to was addressing a comment that you didn't make. thats why it was following a quotation from another user. the only discussion you get is "lol/cringe/yikes", as that's all you have earned. well, that and this comment where i laugh at your reading comprehension. lol.

 

[Pyr]

There's been zero valid refutation to any point I've made.

There has been. But you've made up your mind and have decided to push a narrative. Anything that goes against that narrative is ignored. You've decided to do so via attacking people and not their points.

You need to take a step back and figure out what you're trying to do here.

 

[ｐｓ＿]

There has been. But you've made up your mind and have decided to push a narrative. Anything that goes against that narrative is ignored. You've decided to do so via attacking people and not their points.

You need to take a step back and figure out what you're trying to do here.

Good point, why am I trying to showcase facts to a bunch of mindless fanboys?

Here's some perspective: a single guy could get the Wii and DS back online, allowing people to play with each other again. Saved data is stored client-side, users can create custom servers to connect through (infrastructure is all peer-to-peer), thus giving users indefinite online access. But how could this be? Surely he'd need to charge a subscription fee for that precious matchmaking, right?

 

[Jexulus]

Developers will nickel and dime their customers until they bite back, this is a guarantee. They're always looking for ways to charge you money, even if there's no reason to beyond "our stockholders really like when the zig-zaggy line points up." More to your point, I can absolutely guarantee that any bupkis Reggie feeds you about server fees is a bold-faced lie because, as I said earlier, the Wii had significantly more players and offered virtually everything Switch's online does yet they didn't need to charge you a dime to use it during that console's entire lifespan. Nor the Wii-U's lifespan.

There's been zero valid refutation to any point I've made. There is no reason whatsoever Nintendo needs to charge you for online. All anyone seems able to do is cry about how rude I am, something I must emphasize I couldn't give less of a crap about. If I started to charge you $5 per post, would you just start paying without question because "dude just five bucks lmao"?

Like we said, Nintendo has been operating their online services at a loss. As in, they have paid for every aspect of their online service (maintenance, etc.) without seeing any financial return for just about 12 years before they started charging for it. If you've ever worked a job where you drive like Uber or an equivalent taxi-type service where you use your own car, you'll see what we mean. Your car wears out quickly, gas disappears like wet cotton candy, and unless you get incredibly lucky and work for a company where that's insured or they compensate you, you pay for your gas and your maintenance out of your own wallet. That gets expensive so unbelievably fast that there's a reason why there's so much employee turnover in that industry.

It's the exact same with running a large-scale online service like Nintendo has for their consoles. The reason why they didn't charge for it for a long time was not because it didn't cost them money, but was for two primary reasons:

1. They were making enough money from software sales that the cost of operation was completely covered.
2. Because they had that kind of leeway during the Wii era, they could advertise that as a selling point, which would boost hardware and software sales.
For a time, that strategy succeeded because there wasn't enough of a difference between the service they offered and the service their competition offered. But guess what? Business is always about pushing the envelope, offering better services than your competitors to stay in competition. Microsoft and Sony have been able to massively improve their online services to what we see today because it wasn't a strict operating loss to invest money and resources into improving their product. But Nintendo has not charged money until recently.

Can you honestly tell me Nintendo, a business, would pay through the nose to enhance their online offerings if it only led to losing even more money? Because that what this situation is.

 

[Sudz]

Can you honestly tell me Nintendo, a business, would pay through the nose to enhance their online offerings if it only led to losing even more money? Because that what this situation is.

You mean to tell me that Nintendo is first and foremost a business? Wtf dude don't even

comment edited because quoted section was removed but big lols @ this thread

 

[Jexulus]

BTW, didn't respond to this part initially because it was posted while I was writing my previous post.

Good point, why am I trying to showcase facts to a bunch of mindless fanboys?

Here's some perspective: a single guy could get the Wii and DS back online, allowing people to play with each other again. Saved data is stored client-side, users can create custom servers to connect through (infrastructure is all peer-to-peer), thus giving users indefinite online access. But how could this be? Surely he'd need to charge a subscription fee for that precious matchmaking, right?

You're using a 4-year-old article talking about the onset of a passion project.

Also, your claim that this one man (Michael Lelli) got it working again is incorrect.

This has been a group effort by multiple people that does, in fact, cost money to operate at a fraction of the capacity.

And here's current information on how it's doing right now: wow, look at all those issues! Here's the page to see for yourself.

And you know the best part? This would absolutely not be possible for him to completely build up from scratch with the small group of people working on this, only maintaining the absolute minimum to keep its corpse going. Most of the heavy lifting is done by the games themselves:

"There's been zero valid refutation to any point I've made." How about you read your proof first.

 

[Venus of the Desert Bloom]

To the thread,

Please remember that people are allowed to have a different opinion from everyone else but how and in what tone one uses to communicate is important. Regardless who said or did what, opinions should be respected on both sides and failing to respect these opinions does not foster positive discussion. Name-calling, shaming, trolling, and flame baiting it not acceptable behavior here on Smashboards.

Try to be mindful how to reply and if anyone has any questions or concerns, please contact myself or the moderating staff or please use the Forum Support.

I would say to get back on topic but it technically is on topic. So please stay on topic without trying to ruffle other people’s feathers.

 

[KingDoop]

I agree in the sense that you shouldn't buy a season pass without knowing what's in it.

So be like me and wait until everything is revealed and then choose to buy the pass or individual characters. What then is the problem?

Everyone should be like me

 

[Beautifully Butterfully]

TC, have you ever seen other fighting game DLCs?
Please bare with me when I say fighting game.