Why are people so into paying for online?

[Crazy Hand 2001]

All Nintendo is doing with this is seeing how much money they can make.

Next thing you know they will make characters require online matches to unlock, indirectly making it on disc DLC

 

[NonSpecificGuy]

All Nintendo is doing with this is seeing how much money they can make.

Next thing you know they will make characters require online matches to unlock, indirectly making it on disc DLC

To put it short, Servers aren't free. They take time and man power and dedication to keep up and running. They don't just make you pay for Online for the hell of it just to drain your wallet or see how much money they can make. It's a requirement. It's not ok to have a slow connection like in Brawl anymore. If the connections aren't stable no one will want to play on them.

And on your second point, no. Sakurai, has already said that they streamlined unlocking characters and I doubt playing online matches will be a part of it considering Sakurai's ethic on that subject. The same guy that said DLC would not have many veterans because he didn't want to make people think they were holding back from the base game to sell later wouldn't lock characters behind online play. I think you're making a mountain out of a mole hill.

 

[nuclearneo577]

Because people don't want to admit that it's a scam because they like Nintendo. Except in this case it's even dumber because the Switch has had a free and perfectly functional online service for over a year (Microsoft started this trend from the get-go with Xbox Live and Sony didn't charge for online play till the PS4), since hosting the servers doesn't cost anything for a company as rich as Nintendo.

 

[Nintendotard]

Because people have been asking Nintendo to adapt like other consoles around them and now that they finally are doing it, people want to cry about it despite it being ridiculously cheaper than their competitors services. *sips tea*

 

[FirestormNeos]

but xbox and playstation are already doing it!

and I hated it then, too.

 

[Crazy Hand 2001]

To put it short, Servers aren't free. They take time and man power and dedication to keep up and running. They don't just make you pay for Online for the hell of it just to drain your wallet or see how much money they can make. It's a requirement. It's not ok to have a slow connection like in Brawl anymore. If the connections aren't stable no one will want to play on them.

And on your second point, no. Sakurai, has already said that they streamlined unlocking characters and I doubt playing online matches will be a part of it considering Sakurai's ethic on that subject. The same guy that said DLC would not have many veterans because he didn't want to make people think they were holding back from the base game to sell later wouldn't lock characters behind online play. I think you're making a mountain out of a mole hill.

Too bad that the online play is peer to peer. So there are no actual servers besides matchmaking to pay for.

And matchmaking servers are included in the price of the game. So the $20 is just a needless fee.

 

[Amiibo Doctor]

This isn't a popular opinion, but when you pay for services instead of getting them free, the services are better. You could make the argument that we already got the online service free with the Wii and Wii U, but look how those turned out. Instead, we should pay for it so they can devote specific resources to the servers and have a better time for everyone involved.

And $20 a year? That's not very much at all, considering how expensive the rest of the Nintendo Switch paraphernalia is.

 

[Crazy Hand 2001]

This isn't a popular opinion, but when you pay for services instead of getting them free, the services are better. You could make the argument that we already got the online service free with the Wii and Wii U, but look how those turned out. Instead, we should pay for it so they can devote specific resources to the servers and have a better time for everyone involved.

And $20 a year? That's not very much at all, considering how expensive the rest of the Nintendo Switch paraphernalia is.

You think they will actually make the online better or will they just use it to gain more cash for nothing?

 

[WaxPython]

True I think it's rubbish we need to pay for online, on PC it's free and the servers are much better than Nintendo's

 

[Pegasus Knight]

This isn't a popular opinion, but when you pay for services instead of getting them free, the services are better.

Pretending Nintendo is actually going to funnel the money into services instead of just pocketing all of it as profit.

That's not generally how corporations work. Look at xbox live and playstation network and how they handle fighting games; we still get garbage service in general despite paying $50+/year for that crap.

As it is, since this stupid fee is required for online play... I just hooked up with a family plan that had a slot open, chipped in my $5 ($35/7 members = $5 per user), and figured that's about as good a compromise on "still want to play online, but also want to stick it to the man" as I was going to get.

 

[Deleted member]

Servers cost money. I don't believe its a scam. And for 20$ a year really isn't worth complaining about and if that means they can finally improve online mode, 20$ isn't that serious.

 

[Pegasus Knight]

Except they're not going to do a damn thing to 'improve the service.' They're just going to pocket the money and laugh at us.

 

[Guybrush20X6]

Except they're not going to do a damn thing to 'improve the service.' They're just going to pocket the money and laugh at us.

At the very least, it gives grounds to complain for a substandard service without the ever annoying "well it was free what did you expect" mentality?

Note: I'm off the camp that isn't keen on paid online but gotta see it from all angles.

 

[PeridotGX]

I like playing Mario Kart, Splatoon, and when it comes out Smash online. I'll do what it takes to still be able to.

 

[Fire Emblemier]

Pretending Nintendo is actually going to funnel the money into services instead of just pocketing all of it as profit.

That's not generally how corporations work. Look at xbox live and playstation network and how they handle fighting games; we still get garbage service in general despite paying $50+/year for that crap.

As it is, since this stupid fee is required for online play... I just hooked up with a family plan that had a slot open, chipped in my $5 ($35/7 members = $5 per user), and figured that's about as good a compromise on "still want to play online, but also want to stick it to the man" as I was going to get.

The things you get out of Playstation Plus and Xbox live is free games every month, that help gets your money's worth if you're actually play the ones you get. I've gotten a couple of gems from them I wouldn't have otherwise played like Grim Fandango and Abzu. Not to mention a Triple A game like Phantom Pain or Bloodbourne show up now and then. Plus, their services also offer further discounts when sales often show up on their stores. Saving an extra 5 or 10 bucks on a game that is already on sale is quite nice.

Too bad Nintendo hasn't offered something like that yet, but it is much cheaper, being a third of the price.

 

[Crazy Hand 2001]

The things you get out of Playstation Plus and Xbox live is free games every month, that help gets your money's worth if you're actually play the ones you get. I've gotten a couple of gems from them I wouldn't have otherwise played like Grim Fandango and Abzu. Not to mention a Triple A game like Phantom Pain or Bloodbourne show up now and then. Plus, their services also offer further discounts when sales often show up on their stores. Saving an extra 5 or 10 bucks on a game that is already on sale is quite nice.

Too bad Nintendo hasn't offered something like that yet, but it is much cheaper, being a third of the price.

And dos that have anything to do with online play?

At the very least, it gives grounds to complain for a substandard service without the ever annoying "well it was free what did you expect" mentality?

Note: I'm off the camp that isn't keen on paid online but gotta see it from all angles.

Well free online does the same thing as paid online. So everyone was just blinded into thinking that the service would improve when it was paid

I like playing Mario Kart, Splatoon, and when it comes out Smash online. I'll do what it takes to still be able to.

So you'd pay to play local multiplayer?

 

[PeridotGX]

And dos that have anything to do with online play?



Well free online does the same thing as paid online. So everyone was just blinded into thinking that the service would improve when it was paid



So you'd pay to play local multiplayer?

Probably not. Besides, I only know 2 or 3 people IRL with a Switch that may buy Smash, so I have little use for local.

 

[Fire Emblemier]

And dos that have anything to do with online play?

It has to do with the services that offer online play, offering extra perks out of it, instead of being basically a toll to play with other people. If you have to pay to go play online with others, and you get nothing else out of it, you shouldn't be charged in my opinion.

 

[Crazy Hand 2001]

It has to do with the services that offer online play, offering extra perks out of it, instead of being basically a toll to play with other people. If you have to pay to go play online with others, and you get nothing else out of it, you shouldn't be charged in my opinion.

Does having Super Mario Bros on your Switch have anything to do with playing Mario Kart online?

No. so they should be separate services

 

[#HBC | Red Ryu]

I’m strongly against paying for online.

The only case I buy into it is of it shows a string benefit to not paying for it but a lot of arguments fall apart when we look at PC gaming where they can run it pretty easily without an issue.

Is Nintendo better in some aspects? Yeah it’s cheaper than Xbox live and PSN. If they offer a Netflix style of library for retro games with the ability to co-op multiplayer, then I can buy into it a lot more. Same with cloudsaves.

I haven’t seen good argument for the server part when plenty of PC games can do it without the payment. Maybe it makes the servers more stable I suppose? But I still think that is guess work.

There is a reason they are doing it, because Sony and Microsoft got away with it for years. Nintendo is doing it the cheapest of the three with a family plan to make it cheaper but that’s it.

I never felt good about paying for online like this.

 

[TheTrueBrawler]

$20 for 12 months of online service is nothing when you look at Microsoft and Sony. I don't pay for it currently, but I intend to when Smash Ultimate comes out solely for that game. The money goes towards paying for the servers which is always good.

 

[lucasla]

People should consider that when they say "improve online", they are saying nintendo is responsible for all servers of the games on Switch. But they are not, only on Nintendo games. Servers of third party companies are responsability of the companies, and they only maybe require an authentication on the Switch when you start the games. So, maybe we will see improvements on servers for Nintendo games, like Mario Kart 8, Splatoon, Mario Tennis Aces (this really needs improvement), Smash Ultimate, and others. But dont expect anything to change on the menus of these games, it will just remain working as it is working now. And specially, dont expect anything better for Paladins, Fortinite, or any other payd game from any other company, that take care of their own servers just like they do for the PC version. Anyway, if this payd online just comes with Netflix, better servers for Smash and Mario Tennis and future games, and a better way to add friends and tank to them on Switch, it already worths the price.

 

[Competitively]

less laggy players

 

[aarchak]

I don't exactly love the idea of paid online (I used Xbox paid online and didn't like it very much), but if I have to do it to play online, I still will. I won't like it, but if it helps the servers be better, I'll pay for it I guess.

 

[Flowen231]

I was never for paying to play online in the first place. But if we're all being honest, this all make sense if we consider the fact that nintendo is a company created for the sole purpose of making money. I mean would you sit idly by as your competitors charge for a service that you hand out for free? It was only a matter of time at this point. As long as you want to play online you gotta deal with it, and I definitely intend to play online lol. I'm just glad that they decided to make it far cheaper than their competition.

 

[staindgrey]

People tend to underestimate the costs of running reliable and functional up-to-date servers for a huge install base of, say, 20 million or so. This cost is the repeatedly stated reason for Sega not releasing PSO2 in the west, despite high demand by players. They'd rather just upkeep their domestic servers and let Westerners import copies and play on overseas servers than actively lease and maintain additional servers for the Americas or Europe.

The fact that Nintendo's online service is free is a major reason for why Nintendo's online service for first-party games has been abysmal since the Wii, as well as why the original PSN for PS3 was garbage until about five years later-- when they also started charging for PS+.

I don't think anyone is excited to be paying more money for something they already had. They're excited by the prospect that they'll be paying for something better. If it's not better, that's when we'll have a problem. I don't mind paying a monthly fee at all so long as Smash and Splatoon have better latency and the Switch's friend service receives some needed updates.

 

[Flowen231]

People tend to underestimate the costs of running reliable and functional up-to-date servers for a huge install base of, say, 20 million or so. This cost is the repeatedly stated reason for Sega not releasing PSO2 in the west, despite high demand by players. They'd rather just upkeep their domestic servers and let Westerners import copies and play on overseas servers than actively lease and maintain additional servers for the Americas or Europe.

The fact that Nintendo's online service is free is a major reason for why Nintendo's online service for first-party games has been abysmal since the Wii, as well as why the original PSN for PS3 was garbage until about five years later-- when they also started charging for PS+.

I don't think anyone is excited to be paying more money for something they already had. They're excited by the prospect that they'll be paying for something better. If it's not better, that's when we'll have a problem. I don't mind paying a monthly fee at all so long as Smash and Splatoon have better latency and the Switch's friend service receives some needed updates.

Ok, this is gonna be super off topic, but I NEED to know. When and where did sega say that they weren't bringing pso2 over for that reason? And why would they be cool with us importing copies when they region blocked everyone from playing the game outside of japan?

 

[staindgrey]

Ok, this is gonna be super off topic, but I NEED to know. When and where did sega say that they weren't bringing pso2 over for that reason? And why would they be cool with us importing copies when they region blocked everyone from playing the game outside of japan?

I actually have to backtrack the first statement. It seems that's all conjecture stated by multiple Western outlets, but no official statement on the reason for no Western release has ever been officially stated by Sega. Ever. My bad.

The whole region blocking thing is just a blowhard by Sega though. They've never actively enforced it to my knowledge. The rule was made in response to some non-Japanese players allegedly hacking into the game and messing with stuff, but my friends and I played just fine from Oregon this whole time, no effort to mask ourselves.

Japanese players don't like when an obviously other-continent player drops in for obvious reasons, but Sega seems totally fine with it versus the alternative of actually releasing an official title on foreign servers. Whether it's the cost of servers or localization, a cost of some sort can really be the only viable reason for them to withhold it. Unlike most games that have a manufacturing cost for discs and cases, PSO2 can be released entirely digitally, so those are the only two options.

Out of the two, server maintenance and leasing would be far more expensive than using an in-house localization team.

 

[Galgatha]

To everybody who is complaining that Nintendo is making the online functionality a paid service, saying that multiple PC games do it for free, are forgetting that there is still a manner of how those servers are paid for in regards to free services. Either adds, DLCs, or cash shops. This is how the companies make their money, if they are not forcing you to pay for online services.

Now, I don't play ALOT of computer games, but let's take on where servers are a necessity. MMORPGs. Free to play or Buy to play MMORPGs still need to fund their staff, servers, overhead, etc. And they do so with advertisements or cash shops. I love Guild Wars 2, but even they have a cash shop for your convenience.

Now, unless we want a cash shop in a bunch of Nintendo games, or having to watch adds just to get online, paying a small 20$ a year seems like the better option to me. It's roughly the cost of going out to eat by yourself (from a fast food place) 3 times less a year.
At this point I think people are just looking for things to complain about.

 

[Flowen231]

Alright, just making sure that my rock wasn't too closed off lol. But they did actually implement the region lock at one point, I got the message, I was blocked and everything. Thing is that I actually stopped playing pso2 right before they implemented the block, but decided to go back to kill some time. It worked, and then the next time I got on I got the whole region block message. As far as I know though, this only applies to PC since my buddy plays it on his vita with no issue.

But back on topic lol. Money, server cost, nintendo says so and it's their product

 

[soviet prince]

To everybody who is complaining that Nintendo is making the online functionality a paid service, saying that multiple PC games do it for free, are forgetting that there is still a manner of how those servers are paid for in regards to free services. Either adds, DLCs, or cash shops. This is how the companies make their money, if they are not forcing you to pay for online services.

Now, I don't play ALOT of computer games, but let's take on where servers are a necessity. MMORPGs. Free to play or Buy to play MMORPGs still need to fund their staff, servers, overhead, etc. And they do so with advertisements or cash shops. I love Guild Wars 2, but even they have a cash shop for your convenience.

Now, unless we want a cash shop in a bunch of Nintendo games, or having to watch adds just to get online, paying a small 20$ a year seems like the better option to me. It's roughly the cost of going out to eat by yourself (from a fast food place) 3 times less a year.
At this point I think people are just looking for things to complain about.

was about to post the exact same thing

 

[Buzzwole]

If Nintendo was offering anything of value with their online service, then i'd be more okay with them charging. Unfortunately, Microsoft and Sony have made it "acceptable" to pay for online play, and it was only a matter of time before Nintendo tried to jump on board.

The thing is though, Nintendo hasn't done anything to warrant charging for it. The online functionality on the Switch feels exactly the same as its been for like a decade with Nintendo. Its worse in a lot of ways than the Wii U's online.

The only reason I'm going to be paying it is because they're essentially holding games like Smash Bros and Splatoon hostage.

 

[Crazy Hand 2001]

To everyone who keeps on saying "better servers" you thiunk Nintendo will improve the servers?

I bet not.

 

[TheTrueBrawler]

To everyone who keeps on saying "better servers" you thiunk Nintendo will improve the servers?

I bet not.

We hear you're statement, but why do you believe that?

 

[Crystanium]

If it's meant to improve online services for Nintendo games only, all right. I'm fine with that. I hardly own any games that aren't developed by Nintendo. The idea that Nintendo is just pocketing the money has a problem. Suppose that's what Nintendo will do. Suppose the services do not improve. This could lead to people no longer paying for services. No longer paying for services makes the services irrelevant, which means Nintendo will **** themselves over.

 

[CaptainAmerica]

It's also the simple fact that video game prices ahve been relatively consistent at $60 for a while, but the improvements in technology mean more resources are required to stuff in there. Most games should honestly cost much more to keep and maintain servers, and to pay for free updates like patches.

Now not everyone has access to reliable internet or likes to play online with others. That means that if they paid $100, but only got 50% of the game, it's a poor deal and the'd not (or they'd pirate). Whereas a person who wants to play online is now getting $100 of value for only $60 plus an online fee to round out the rest.

I always think of it like Apple - they claim to be selling their products cheaper by not bunlding the adapters - only the people who need the adapters but them. I don't play online, so I'm not missing the online features of the game, but if I had to pay for online and I don't use it, you bet I'd be annoyed.

 

[Crazy Hand 2001]

We hear you're statement, but why do you believe that?

Because Nintendo knows fans just want online play? They can improve the servers but why spend effort when you get paid either way?

 

[Bassoonist]

The thing is though, Nintendo hasn't done anything to warrant charging for it. The online functionality on the Switch feels exactly the same as its been for like a decade with Nintendo. Its worse in a lot of ways than the Wii U's online.

Amen. Remember how the Wii U actually removed the archaic friend code system that so many people always complained about and we actually had usernames?

The idea of Nintendo asking me to pay for their shoddy online services when they regressed back to friend codes is just laughably bad.

They won't improve their online services (which as have been stated before the servers are P2P - paying for this online is a scam, period). They have said nothing of the sort ever since they announced the Switch. In fact, we know almost nothing more about the service today - a month away from it starting - than we did when the service was first announced with the Switch. I think cloud saves may be the only feature that was announced later, but I could be wrong about that.

I hate how Nintendo gets successful when they're being scummy. The Wii U had usernames instead of friend codes and Virtual Console that extended to even DS games. But the Switch has neither. This is really sad to me as a Nintendo fan. Aside from the portability that the Switch has, I will say I preferred the Wii U itself as a console.

 

[Thinkaman]

No one should be surprised when a free service is of inferior quality to the competition's paid offerings.

I think Nintendo has a lot of room for improvement, to put it mildly. But it's dubious to expect anyone to improve a free service.

All long-term attempts to build a high quality service must include a paid component.

 

[Crazy Hand 2001]

No one should be surprised when a free service is of inferior quality to the competition's paid offerings.

I think Nintendo has a lot of room for improvement, to put it mildly. But it's dubious to expect anyone to improve a free service.

All long-term attempts to build a high quality service must include a paid component.

Well what services related to playing online and not NES games can be improved?