Support NeoGAF

[cryptoadam]

How do you know?

Did Microsoft make them charge $60 for a game they've been selling for $20 and released for $50 in 2014?

Did Sony teach them to have their customers rebuy the same classic games each time they moved to their new console?

Did anyone decide that that same games running at lower resolution and framerates should be anywhere between $10 to $40 more expensive on Nintendo hardware?

Given all the myriad of extra costs this generation with Nintendo, Sony and Microsoft have a lot to answer for.

Because MS started this mess with Xbox live and Sony continued it with PSN+. What they charge for games or whatever is besides the point.

In the WII and PS3 era both had free online and only MS charged. I prefered playing BC2 and KZ2 for free. Then Sony got in on it and with PS4 started charging to play online just like MS. Nintendo is following the other console guys because gamers have shown 0 resistance to paying for online play.

If MS and Sony offered free online no way would Nintendo charge for it, especially how behind their online is. If sony was not charging for PS+ to play games online I am sure Nintendo wouldn't either just like back in the Wii days.

I am opposed to paying for online for all consoles. ONLINE play should be free. Charge me for the bells and whistles fine, but playing a match of BF2 shouldn't cost me 60$ a year, but it does. Thats the reality of console gaming.

Nintendo is charging the bare minimum it can and giving you the bare minimum. It should be free, but if their competition is making money they are going to do the same.

 

[cryptoadam]

I'll blame Microsoft for Live Gold and Sony for PSN. This is on Nintendo.

Point being if there was no Live or PSN, Nintendo's online would be free. They only feel they can charge for it because the other 2 guys do.

 

[bufkus]

Guessing Nintendo's main motivation for the cloud save system is for the family account sharing. This is actually a stealth way to promote parents buying a Switch for each of their kids instead of just one for them to share.

I guess I will stop playing ARMS online in september. Not paying for a single game, and definitely not paying for cloud saves.

lol its only $20 a year bro. you really that cheap?

 

[Andyliini]

Because MS started this mess with Xbox live and Sony continued it with PSN+. What they charge for games or whatever is besides the point.

I actually remember the time when paid online became acceptable. Microsoft had charged for online for some time and people were giving them hell for it. Then suddenly Sony announced that they also will charge for greater good. And boom. Right then charging for online play wasn't such a bad idea after all.

 

[Fbh]

I actually remember the time when paid online became acceptable. Microsoft had charged for online for some time and people were giving them hell for it. Then suddenly Sony announced that they also will charge for greater good. And boom. Right then charging for online play wasn't such a bad idea after all.

There were millions of paying users on Xbox 360.
So it has been accepted since the beginnings of last gen

 

[cireza]

lol its only $20 a year bro. you really that cheap?

Yes I am bro. Not paying for any online service, this one is not going to be an exception bro.

 

[cryptoadam]

I actually remember the time when paid online became acceptable. Microsoft had charged for online for some time and people were giving them hell for it. Then suddenly Sony announced that they also will charge for greater good. And boom. Right then charging for online play wasn't such a bad idea after all.

It sucks. Online P2P should be free. Its like micro transactions. The industry will go as far as it can. The only thing that stopped MTX was the outrage over star wars. If gamers got that pissed about live and PSN+ we would have free online.

I would trade PSN+ for this anyday of the week. I don't need the discounts or "free" games. I dont voice chat in online or party up either. All I need is to play online matchs and I sure as hell would rather pay 20$ than 60$ if it was up to me.

Either way though all of the consoles should have free online play but its too late to put the genie back in the bottle.

 

[Zog]

lol its only $20 a year bro. you really that cheap?

I have seen this 'argument' all over the internet since this was announced. It is the laziest and most pointless 'argument' that one can make. Why not just say 'You poor Bro?'

 

[Zog]

Point being if there was no Live or PSN, Nintendo's online would be free. They only feel they can charge for it because the other 2 guys do.

I agree with this but this is still on Nintendo, they didn't have to do this.

 

[Zog]

Either way though all of the consoles should have free online play but its too late to put the genie back in the bottle.

Consumers could do it if they wanted to but they can't seem to go without online play long enough to make a change.

 

[Vawn]

I actually remember the time when paid online became acceptable. Microsoft had charged for online for some time and people were giving them hell for it. Then suddenly Sony announced that they also will charge for greater good. And boom. Right then charging for online play wasn't such a bad idea after all.

Sounds fair. It's all Sony and their fans fault because they were second.

 

[cryptoadam]

I agree with this but this is still on Nintendo, they didn't have to do this.

Ya its on Nintendo for deciding to charge for online. They could of used free online as a bullet point, and they gave it to their switch owners for a year. But they were always up front they were going to charge for it at a later date.

It sucks that as gamers we have accepted to pay to play online matches. But it is what it is. Just their service shouldn't be looked at to compete with Live or PSN+. It should be looked at as only paying for online play. If you don't play Kart or Splatoon or Smash then there is no need for it. Eshop and everything else is still free.

 

[PumpkinPie]

I'm dying to play those same NES games they've been selling me for the past decade.

 

[Zog]

Ya its on Nintendo for deciding to charge for online. They could of used free online as a bullet point, and they gave it to their switch owners for a year. But they were always up front they were going to charge for it at a later date.

It sucks that as gamers we have accepted to pay to play online matches. But it is what it is. Just their service shouldn't be looked at to compete with Live or PSN+. It should be looked at as only paying for online play. If you don't play Kart or Splatoon or Smash then there is no need for it. Eshop and everything else is still free.

If consumers could just let go of online play for a year or two then maybe we would see some change but as it is....nothing will change and will likely just get more expensive.

 

[Zog]

I'm dying to play those same NES games they've been selling me for the past decade.

Wait until you play Super Mario Bros. You can shoot fireballs and break bricks. Yep, 1985 is an awesome time to be alive!

 

[B_Signal]

Wait until you play Super Mario Bros. You can shoot fireballs and break bricks. Yep, 1985 is an awesome time to be alive!

ah, the 80s. Russia were at odds with the West, Donald trump was a household name, and Nintendo was selling NES games. We'll never see the like again

 

[Zog]

ah, the 80s. Russia were at odds with the West, Donald trump was a household name, and Nintendo was selling NES games. We'll never see the like again

I am a prophet so I can tell you a few things about the future. You will get the chance to buy Nintendo Entertainment System games over and over again. Mostly just the game file itself (known as a ROM) but in about 15 years there will come an advanced Game Boy and you will be able to buy Nintendo Entertainment System games on that. The future is bright for the Nintendo Entertainment System! Also the next console will be a winner and called the Super Nintendo Entertainment System. Following that though things are not so bright for about a decade. Ya know,in case you were interested in playing the market.