Support NeoGAF

[grandwizard]

$60 does suck and if I could only play online without the extra crap (free games, online storage and other stuff) without paying, I would totally do that plan. However, I cant play PC games online knowing that people with a better PC (mine is OK) always have an advantage over me.

The 'console level playing field' is a thing of the past now that you have PS4 pro users with higher framerates in multiplayer, higher cost SCUF controllers, and mouse and keyboard adapters.

 

[ArtHands]

$60 does suck and if I could only play online without the extra crap (free games, online storage and other stuff) without paying, I would totally do that plan. However, I cant play PC games online knowing that people with a better PC (mine is OK) always have an advantage over me.

Well now the PS4 Pro users will always have an advantage over you now

 

[Huge Succeeded]

I care for simplicity, going into no more than a few steps and joining my friends in game and chat beats the hell of having to use separate apps and go through the hassle of seting up each session individually, and if the platforms that allows that charge for this convenience I will gladly pay for it if I think the price is right.



But it doesn't by it's very nature of openness. The fact that the platform is so open you can (and have to) use different stuff to get online already makes it an inferior solution when it comes to user convenience.

And that's not taking into account discoverability. Very often I set up a party with my friends or family and a friend of theirs seeing that we are in a party and playing a game join us and became a new friend to play with.

You can't have that on Pc, because even if you happen to have most of your friendlist in another chat app they won't see that you are in a gaming session call, not to mention that for sure you won't have no where near close to 100% of your friend list added in another chat platform so that discovery would be even possible however unlikely.

you don't actually know what gaming on PC is like, do you?

The 'console level playing field' is a thing of the past now that you have PS4 pro users with higher framerates in multiplayer, higher cost SCUF controllers, and mouse and keyboard adapters.

frankly it was never a thing that's just clearer now

 

[PeterGAF]

its not really defensible op
its just a thing that exists because greed

Well I mean running an online network isn't free but hey what do I know.

 

[TheRedSnifit]

Well I mean running an online network isn't free but hey what do I know.

Running what amounts to little more than a storefront and shoddy matchmaking service isn't so expensive that they need everybody to chuck them an extra $60 a year to cover it.

 

[ArtHands]

Well I mean running an online network isn't free but hey what do I know.

Sony can run it for Vita and PS3 but not for PS4?

While every mobile games can have free online because ?

 

[MUnited83]

Well I mean running an online network isn't free but hey what do I know.

All those p2p servers, so costly wow damn

 

[Chief Devin]

Go play Gears of war 1 online and try to tell me Host Advantage is a myth. The guy on youtube that analyzes online games said the new Call of Duty has it. People need to really do their honework before speaking.

 

[nOoblet16]

Do we seriously have people suggesting that lag compensation nullifies ping difference and host advantage is a myth?

Lag compensation exists in the games but not to the ridiculous extent being suggested here. There is a fine line between how much is acceptable and how much isn't and devs spend a lot of time trying to figure out where that line is drawn.

 

[eot]

Sony and MS aren't even the ones providing dedicated servers for the few games that have them, the publishers do that and they don't charge extra for it. Paying for that kind of service would be alright IMO, especially renting your own server, but paying just for online access is a scam.

 

[Beegeous]

I'm replying to the OP but I don't mind paying for XBL.

It's £5 per month, I get a good, stable service and I get a few complimentary games each month.

 

[Lork]

You guys need to understand what lag compensation is and why it exists:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6EwaW2iz4iA

Host advantage is a myth.

lol, the guy in your video literally explains that "The first shot to reach the server is the one that registers first, so the player with the lower ping has an advantage in this regard". And yet you act like the people trying to explain these concepts to you are the ignorant ones.

 

[nOoblet16]

Sony and MS aren't even the ones providing dedicated servers for the few games that have them, the publishers do that and they don't charge extra for it. Paying for that kind of service would be alright IMO, especially renting your own server, but paying just for online access is a scam.

All MS first party games use Azure though.

 

[hooijdonk17]

All MS first party games use Azure though.

But these don't require XBL Gold.. So why do I pay for Gold again?

 

[TheRedSnifit]

lol, the guy in your video literally explains that "The first shot to reach the server is the one that registers first, so the player with the lower ping has an advantage in this regard". And yet you act like the people trying to explain these concepts to you are the ignorant ones.

The guy in the video is confusing latency with tickrate, duh!

 

[Randy Monk]

Sorry but your exemple is just stupid and is just a PROOF of how consumers shape up the market.

Best exemple on that matter ? France.
We used to pay 60 euros during the ADSL 512K era per month with data cap. Today ? We're rocking 1Gbs no data cap internet, with TV and phone included for 30 and down to 15 euros during sales per month.

We used to pay 30 euros for 1 hour of phone and unlimited texts but limited internet data. We used to think 100 euros each months for everything unlimited was a crazy deal.
Today we pay like 15 euros for unlimited call/text/internet data up to 20GB with limited bandwith after cap is reached.

We have shiton better services with far lower prices, because consumers and competition shaped the market this way.

Your thinking is a gullible and submissive consumer behaviour.
"Sony and Microsoft charges up for a service THEY DONT PROVIDE ? Who cares, lives with your times, it's only 60 bucks a year". Thank god corporations have apologists to allow these scammy practices to keep going on.

Wow.

This whole issue is highly subjective so I don't know why you are getting so angry. You are calling consumers like myself who pay for PS+ "gullible and submissive".

In a capitalist market place where sellers can set their price and buyers can decide to purchase the product or not, you are saying we are "gullible and submissive" by purchasing a product that we feel we derive some value.

Am I "gullible and submissive" when I paid $20 to see a movie when I could've waited until it was free to watch on TV?

Am I "gullible and submissive" when I paid $10 for lunch when I could've cooked the lunch at home for half the price?

Am I "gullible and submissive" when I paid more to play Battlefront on the PS4 than on the PC?

Even if it costs Sony 1 cent to provide me with their PS+ service, it's their right to charge me what they want. They can charge $100 a month but I will tell them to fuck off. They charge $5 and in my fiscal capacity, I say fair enough. That's my choice as a consumer. That's the world we live in. These companies like Sony and Valve are providing an entertainment service, not life or death like medicine.

Comparing free multiplayer on the PC and the consoles is not the same thing. If it was the same then the consoles wouldn't exist. They exist because they offer something different, and that's what we pay for.

If you feel strongly about the issue, then vote with your wallet and don't pay. However don't call people who do pay "gullible and submissive" because that makes you look like an entitled child who is angry he can't play with his friends.

 

[hooijdonk17]

Wow.

This whole issue is highly subjective so I don't know why you are getting so angry. You are calling consumers like myself who pay for PS+ "gullible and submissive".

In a capitalist market place where sellers can set their price and buyers can decide to purchase the product or not, you are saying we are "gullible and submissive" by purchasing a product that we feel we derive some value.

Am I "gullible and submissive" when I paid $20 to see a movie when I could've waited until it was free to watch on TV?

Am I "gullible and submissive" when I paid $10 for lunch when I could've cooked the lunch at home for half the price?

Am I "gullible and submissive" when I paid more to play Battlefront on the PS4 than on the PC?

Even if it costs Sony 1 cent to provide me with their PS+ service, it's their right to charge me what they want. They can charge $100 a month but I will tell them to fuck off. They charge $5 and in my fiscal capacity, I say fair enough. That's my choice as a consumer. That's the world we live in. These companies like Sony and Valve are providing an entertainment service, not life or death like medicine.

Comparing free multiplayer on the PC and the consoles is not the same thing. If it was the same then the consoles wouldn't exist. They exist because they offer something different, and that's what we pay for.

If you feel strongly about the issue, then vote with your wallet and don't pay. However don't call people who do pay "gullible and submissive" because that makes you look like an entitled child who is angry he can't play with his friends.

People bought snake poison as medicine in a capitalist marketplace. That doesnt make them sound less gullible and submissive. Fact of the matter is a functioning marketplace assumes rational behavior and symmetric knowledge. Most buyers of this fictional service are not rational and dont have a clue what they are paying for. The marketplace argument falls apart before it begins to explain anything.

Rest of the post is also disagreeable but one thing sticks out really bad. You are not stupid for paying for lunch instead of making your own but you are stupid for paying fior paying someone to serve you your own cooking so that you can pretend you didnt have to cook it. That is Live and PSN+.

 

[ArtHands]

Wow.

This whole issue is highly subjective so I don't know why you are getting so angry. You are calling consumers like myself who pay for PS+ "gullible and submissive".

In a capitalist market place where sellers can set their price and buyers can decide to purchase the product or not, you are saying we are "gullible and submissive" by purchasing a product that we feel we derive some value.

Am I "gullible and submissive" when I paid $20 to see a movie when I could've waited until it was free to watch on TV?

Am I "gullible and submissive" when I paid $10 for lunch when I could've cooked the lunch at home for half the price?

Am I "gullible and submissive" when I paid more to play Battlefront on the PS4 than on the PC?

Even if it costs Sony 1 cent to provide me with their PS+ service, it's their right to charge me what they want. They can charge $100 a month but I will tell them to fuck off. They charge $5 and in my fiscal capacity, I say fair enough. That's my choice as a consumer. That's the world we live in. These companies like Sony and Valve are providing an entertainment service, not life or death like medicine.

Comparing free multiplayer on the PC and the consoles is not the same thing. If it was the same then the consoles wouldn't exist. They exist because they offer something different, and that's what we pay for.

If you feel strongly about the issue, then vote with your wallet and don't pay. However don't call people who do pay "gullible and submissive" because that makes you look like an entitled child who is angry he can't play with his friends.

If you think they can charge whatever they want, why cant paying consumers call them out on this practice of locking some contents that the paying customer has already purchased? If you enjoy the incentives of PS Plus like those "free" games, sure. But yes you are gullible and submissive for turning a blind eye to Sony placing a pay wall to what's suppose to be available freely without it.

PS3 can offer free online game. What's different about PS4 that they should now charge money?

 

[test_account]

So what is the solution to this? We've seen that people are willing to pay for it, and its a good business opportunity. I understand that some people dont like it, but what can be done?

I can also add that i'm one of the guys who had PS+ in the PS3 days, and i would still have it in the PS4 days even if online play was free. For me, it would be the same regarding online play because i would have PS+ in either case.

Ofc a host isn't going to have any latency, they're the host. You aren't behind if a client has a latency of 100ms, theyre behind 100ms. The server is the box that makes all the decisions, the client just sends to the server what it's doing (usually the case, netcode dependant).

For example, if you're the host and you shoot someone at the time as a client, and they're both one shot kills, then the server would receive the client doing so 100ms after you've just done the same action, so the host would get the kill and the client would die.

How does that work? Lets say we play a 1vs1 game and have 50ms ping to each other. It would take 50ms before you recieve my movement in the game, and it would take 50ms for me to recieve your movement in the game. Where doesn the zero latency come in in cases like this? The only way i can see that zero latency plays a role in this case is if the game has bots. This way, the host wont have any ping to the bots, but other human players will.

 

[Roberto Larcos]

I'm replying to the OP but I don't mind paying for XBL.

It's £5 per month, I get a good, stable service and I get a few complimentary games each month.

£5 per month? Damn, you're overpaying.

 

[TheRedSnifit]

How does that work? Lets say we play a 1vs1 game and have 50ms ping to each other. It would take 50ms before you recieve my movement in the game, and it would take 50ms for me to recieve your movement in the game. Where doesn the zero latency come in in cases like this? The only way i can see that zero latency plays a role in this case is if the game has bots. This way, the host wont have any ping to the bots, but other human players will.

The host is the one calling the shots. Where he sees you is where you actually are as far as the game is concerned.

If you both pull the trigger at the same time, it takes 50ms for you to tell the host that you pulled the trigger, whereas the host instantly knows he pulled it. So the host gets the first shot.

 

[ArtHands]

So what is the solution to this? We've seen that people are willing to pay for it, and its a good business opportunity. I understand that some people dont like it, but what can be done?

I can also add that i'm one of the guys who had PS+ in the PS3 days, and i would still have it in the PS4 days even if online play was free. For me, it would be the same regarding online play because i would have PS+ in either case.

The subscription services for Playstation 4 and XBox One are suppose to add premium services to the subscribers. In other words it should be having extras that doesn't take away the basics of non-subscribers.

Things like free soundtracks/digital art books, better birthday perks, ability to purchase store exclusive contents too etc. These add values to the service without taking anything from non-subscribers.

 

[test_account]

The host is the one calling the shots. Where he sees you is where you actually are as far as the game is concerned.

If you both pull the trigger at the same time, it takes 50ms for you to tell the host that you pulled the trigger, whereas the host instantly knows he pulled it. So the host gets the first shot.

Both players have the game running locally, but the user data/movement (which is sent over the internet) is something that both players has to concider. They both have to recieve and send data, so the game can acknowledge whats happened. When the host pull the trigger, he/she has to send that signal to the other player, which takes time as well. Both players will see the actual movement with a 50ms delay. I cant see how its possible that this is a one way street, where one experience zero latency and the other doesnt when signals has to be sent and recieved.

The subscription services for Playstation 4 and XBox One are suppose to add premium services to the subscribers. In other words it should be having extras that doesn't take away the basics of non-subscribers.

Things like free soundtracks/digital art books, better birthday perks, ability to purchase store exclusive contents too etc. These add values to the service without taking anything from non-subscribers.

Do you think those things would bring in equally or more subscribers than the current model? Personally i cant see that.

 

[Mohasus]

Are you implying that Nvidia is as cheap as it used to be in 2004? And why would I buy a GPU with less RAM/future-proofness?

Of course I can complain when the mid-range tier used to be around €200. €400 should be reserved for high-end cards only. Hell, I can buy an entire console for that amount of money.

A console used to cost €200 too.

 

[TheRedSnifit]

Both players have the game running locally, but the user data/movement (which is sent over the internet) is something that both players has to concider. They both have to recieve and send data, so the game can acknowledge whats happened. When the host pull the trigger, he/she has to send that signal to the other player, which takes time as well. Both players will see the actual movement with a 50ms delay. I cant see how its possible that this is a one way street, where one experience zero latency and the other doesnt when signals has to be sent and recieved.

Why does the host (the server) have to wait for the client to receive the signal before registering the shot? If both players pull the trigger at the same time, the one who tells the server first gets the shot.

Note that some engines (such as Source) rewind time for all clients by 100ms. I wonder why they do that.

 

[REDSLATE]

While it's definitely a business venture to charge for online play, part of the profit goes to supporting/expanding an online infrastructure. There's a reason why Xbox LIVE, as a service, is better than PlayStation Network; they have the capital to back and improve it. Sony realized this and has recently adopted Microsoft's approach, but they're two generations behind.

Console multilayer essentially shaped and streamlined multiplayer through "matchmaking" where as PC gaming traditionally relied on client/host sessions, server browsing, IP trading, or LANing. While a premium online service may not be necessary to accommodate this convenience, it did provide the environment which allowed said convenience's creation and continued improvement.

 

[ArtHands]

Both players have the game running locally, but the user data/movement (which is sent over the internet) is something that both players has to concider. They both have to recieve and send data, so the game can acknowledge whats happened. When the host pull the trigger, he/she has to send that signal to the other player, which takes time as well. Both players will see the actual movement with a 50ms delay. I cant see how its possible that this is a one way street, where one experience zero latency and the other doesnt when signals has to be sent and recieved.



Do you think those things would bring in equally or more subscribers than the current model? Personally i cant see that.

I am coming from the angle where they should properly do this while being fair to the non-subscribers, not from the angle of trying to make as many people as possible to subscribe. Right now it may means people are forced to subscribe because they want online gaming on console, rather than they find the PS Plus incentives attractive enough to sign up.

I mean you are asking a solution to this problem, unless your problem refers to how to get as many subscribers as possible and not how to fix the service so that it is not gouging on non-subscibers.

 

[GhostTrick]

Wow.

This whole issue is highly subjective so I don't know why you are getting so angry. You are calling consumers like myself who pay for PS+ "gullible and submissive".

In a capitalist market place where sellers can set their price and buyers can decide to purchase the product or not, you are saying we are "gullible and submissive" by purchasing a product that we feel we derive some value.

Am I "gullible and submissive" when I paid $20 to see a movie when I could've waited until it was free to watch on TV?

Am I "gullible and submissive" when I paid $10 for lunch when I could've cooked the lunch at home for half the price?

Am I "gullible and submissive" when I paid more to play Battlefront on the PS4 than on the PC?

Even if it costs Sony 1 cent to provide me with their PS+ service, it's their right to charge me what they want. They can charge $100 a month but I will tell them to fuck off. They charge $5 and in my fiscal capacity, I say fair enough. That's my choice as a consumer. That's the world we live in. These companies like Sony and Valve are providing an entertainment service, not life or death like medicine.

Comparing free multiplayer on the PC and the consoles is not the same thing. If it was the same then the consoles wouldn't exist. They exist because they offer something different, and that's what we pay for.

If you feel strongly about the issue, then vote with your wallet and don't pay. However don't call people who do pay "gullible and submissive" because that makes you look like an entitled child who is angry he can't play with his friends.

No, you got me wrong. I'm calling you out when you say "Time has changed, technology got better or service is better so we have to pay more". Hence why I called you out on your exemple with the exemple of France, were prices dramatically decreased while the offer dramatically increased.

When consumers are gullible (in the sense that they believe any excuse that companies gives them to justify terrible practices, in this case, online needs to be behind a paywall because of server cost, when they dont provide any of that) and submissive (in the sense that they accept such practices and even defend these by calling value to it), yes, it shapes the market in a way.

I'm not calling out on PS+ value or whatever. I'm calling out on online play being behind PS+ when Sony doesn't provide ANY SERVICE here. They don't handle it except for their games. Same for Microsoft.

Also, stop with the "entitled" thing.

 

[test_account]

Why does the host (the server) have to wait for the client to receive the signal before registering the shot? If both players pull the trigger at the same time, the one who tells the server first gets the shot.

Note that some engines (such as Source) rewind time for all clients by 100ms. I wonder why they do that.

That makes sense, i didnt think of that. I was thinking more in regards to movement, that both people will have latency to each other there. Are there any games where being the host is a clear advantage? If Source Engine does it that way, do others do it as well?

No need for "i wonder what that could be" tone by the way I never said that it was wrong, i was just discussing it.

I am coming from the angle where they should properly do this while being fair to the non-subscribers, not from the angle of trying to make as many people as possible to subscribe. Right now it may means people are forced to subscribe because they want online gaming on console, rather than they find the PS Plus incentives attractive enough to sign up.

I mean you are asking a solution to this problem, unless your problem refers to how to get as many subscribers as possible and not how to fix the service so that it is not gouging on non-subscibers.

I'm thinking more regarding a solution on how to make Microsoft and Sony to change their business model. I know that people dont want to pay for online if they have no interest in the other offerings that Live Gold and PS+ offers, but is it possible to get Microsoft and Sony to change their business model? If so, i think it has to be a solution that is at least just as lucrative as it is today, and what could that be?

 

[PeterGAF]

Running what amounts to little more than a storefront and shoddy matchmaking service isn't so expensive that they need everybody to chuck them an extra $60 a year to cover it.

Sony can run it for Vita and PS3 but not for PS4?

While every mobile games can have free online because ?

All those p2p servers, so costly wow damn

Say what you want but running, maintaining, and improving an online service isn't free. Probably isn't all that cheap either. Xbox Live has always had a subscription price and it's a better, more reliable service than PSN, which only in the past few years required a subscription. I don't think that's a coincidence.

Obviously neither Microsoft nor Sony have to charge for online. They could both probably cover it themselves just fine (I mean Sony did in the past), but the fact is someone is paying for it. If the consumer takes on some of that cost in the form of a subscription then the company can put that revenue back into the service. I have no idea where the money from these subscriptions actually go, and most likely neither do you, but I'd like to assume that at least some of it goes back into the service so that Microsoft and Sony can improve it. Again, I don't think it's a coincidence that XBL, a service which has always had a subscription, is more reliable than PSN, a service which hasn't until recently. You could argue that there are other factors at play and you might be correct, but I'm willing to bet that the revenue MS gets from XBL has helped them to improve the service.

And to refer to these services as "little more than a storefront" is very ignorant of the many other aspects of XBL and PSN.

But again what do I know?

 

[ArtHands]

Say what you want but running, maintaining, and improving an online service isn't free. Probably isn't all that cheap either. Xbox Live has always had a subscription price and it's a better, more reliable service than PSN, which only in the past few years required a subscription. I don't think that's a coincidence.

Obviously neither Microsoft nor Sony have to charge for online. They could both probably cover it themselves just fine (I mean Sony did in the past), but the fact is someone is paying for it. If the consumer takes on some of that cost in the form of a subscription then the company can put that revenue back into the service. I have no idea where the money from these subscriptions actually go, and most likely neither do you, but I'd like to assume that at least some of it goes back into the service so that Microsoft and Sony can improve it. Again, I don't think it's a coincidence that XBL, a service which has always had a subscription, is more reliable than PSN, a service which hasn't until recently. You could argue that there are other factors at play and you might be correct, but I'm willing to bet that the revenue MS gets from XBL has helped them to improve the service.

And to refer to these services as "little more than a storefront" is very ignorant of the many other aspects of XBL and PSN.

But again what do I know?

you really dont need a better servers for things like game discount or "free games".

Customers has no obligation to help take on some of the cost for that. The onus is on Sony and Microsoft.

 

[TheRedSnifit]

That makes sense, i didnt think of that. I was thinking more in regards to movement, that both people will have latency to each other there. Are there any games where being the host is a clear advantage? If Source Engine does it that way, do others do it as well?

No need for "i wonder what that could be" tone by the way I never said that it was wrong, i was just discussing it.

I assume most do it, but you can only do so much. For example, what happens if both players shoot within 100ms of each other? Both players will see themselves shoot, but who wins essentially becomes a coin toss. Developers have to weigh lag compensation vs. ping advantage.

As for games with host advantage, CoD is a pretty blatant example, since it executes commands as soon as they reach the server (host). Melee fights are generally impossible for anybody but the host to win. It's more common than you'd hope. And even on Source, somebody with more than about 50 ping (about half of the interpolation time with default settings) will have a disadvantage.

And yeah, I was out of line there. Cheers

 

[Dusk Golem]

I'm curious how the thoughts on this topic may be with the news Nintendo is finally joining the paid online fray that Microsoft & Sony consoles have established for themselves.

 

[Lilalaunebaer]

Well, everyone was yelling at Nintendo to do what Sony and MS are doing. So there you go.

 

[ArtHands]

Well, everyone was yelling at Nintendo to do what Sony and MS are doing. So there you go.

Lol, i was going to bump this thread myself.

Well if anyone is wondering why Nintendo has a subscription, i think they should take a thorough look at this thread.

 

[emb]

I'm curious how the thoughts on this topic may be with the news Nintendo is finally joining the paid online fray that Microsoft & Sony consoles have established for themselves.

Unfortunate. Consoles from all 3 companies do this now, both handhelds are dying and not coming back. PC is the only haven of free online that's left (that and mobile I suppose).

I think offering free online multiplayer is a niche that would fit Nintendo well - many people are going to see it as a secondary console, and not want the subscription fees to pile up. I feel like the paywall + apparently requiring smartphone for online communication is going to stunt the success of a console that's otherwise in a good spot. We have yet to see exactly how their service plays out though, so they could end up proving its value.

Personally, I'm really just sad that I'll most likely never get to play Splatoon 2 or Smash 5 (and 6 and 7 and etc) online.

 

[Nightbird]

I was hoping Nintendo wouldn't jump on this train, but now they did.

This honestly makes it harder to go multi-platform for me.

 

[n0razi]

I had ps4 and wii u this gen but i can't swing 2 separate online subscriptions.. bye switch

 

[Bishop89]

so is this one of those "eat crow" threads that is worth reading through now?

 

[Stiflers Mom]

This really itches me.

Maybe it's finally time to go full PC for my gaming needs.

 

[Syncytia]

Unfortunate. Consoles from all 3 companies does this now, both handhelds are dying and not coming back. PC is the only haven of free online that's left (that and mobile I suppose).

I think it's a niche that would fit Nintendo well - many people are going to see it as a secondary console, and not want the subscription fees to pile up. I feel like the paywall + apparently requiring smartphone for online communication is going to stunt the success of a console that's otherwise in a good spot. We have yet to see exactly how their service plays out though, so they could end up proving its value.

Personally, I'm really just sad that I'll most likely never get to play Splatoon 2 or Smash 5 (and 6 and 7 and etc) online.

Yeah, I'm not sure this will work out well for Nintendo. I only have an X1, but if I buy another console I'm not paying for more online subscription services. I play on PC as well, but the reason I even have an XBL sub is for my friends that use it as well. The only way I'm going to playstation or nintendo is if a new console comes out and everyone migrates. I still do think that price isn't too bad especially when you consider the monthly free games... even if they aren't awesome every month.

 

[Rizific]

my thoughts on this still hasnt changed. i can play multiplayer games on my pc using the internet that im already paying for. so why on god's green earth would I willingly choose to pay an additional fee for that same "feature" on a console? i own two x1s, a ps4, and a wii u but am not paying to play online for any of those. most definitely wont be paying nintendo for what im anticipating to be a sub-par network either.

 

[Melchiah]

I'm curious how the thoughts on this topic may be with the news Nintendo is finally joining the paid online fray that Microsoft & Sony consoles have established for themselves.

Same here. I'm also interested in what the subscription features are on Switch, like betas, share play, automatic updates and backup saves on server. The information I saw mentioned "monthly game download" in singular, so I wonder if it's actually going to be only one game per month?

Now that all three platform holders have an online fee, I imagine it's going to be hard to justify paying for 2-3 of them if you tend to play on multiple systems.

 

[Durante]

I'm curious how the thoughts on this topic may be with the news Nintendo is finally joining the paid online fray that Microsoft & Sony consoles have established for themselves.

Well. my thoughts haven't changed.
Companies enjoy fleecing people.

I'm surprised though that Nintendo think they can get away with it. Even people who have resigned to paying one fee might balk at multiple ones.

 

[_Clash_]

I, too, find it difficult.

FFS Nintendo

 

[Usobuko]

Personally, I find it interesting when companies make such decision and how it'll played out in future.

I think Nintendo needs to focus on Mobile much harder now along with the license of its IP to various entertainment format.

 

[LordRaptor]

I'm curious how the thoughts on this topic may be with the news Nintendo is finally joining the paid online fray that Microsoft & Sony consoles have established for themselves.

Its still bullshit, and congratulations all the people who pushed for PS4 having it at the start of this gen and for nintendo to be adding it with the switch for making your shitty self-fulfilling prophecy come to fruition

e:

I'm surprised though that Nintendo think they can get away with it. Even people who have resigned to paying one fee might balk at multiple ones.

Curiously I haven't sen anyone mention this:
http://www.nintendo.com/switch/online-service/

Nintendo Account required to access online services.

The paid online service will be available in the U.S., Canada, and Mexico only at launch.

Given we know that Activision get a cut of XBL subscriptions, so it would seem very likely EA do as well, I'm wondering if the push for this was from Western third parties, hence its inclusion being a NA only thing (at least to start)

 

[Crayon]

I'm curious how the thoughts on this topic may be with the news Nintendo is finally joining the paid online fray that Microsoft & Sony consoles have established for themselves.

Fuck everyone and everything in the world be my thoughts. This lay down behavior is the downfall of society.

 

[killatopak]

yeah me as well.

PS+ free games and gfg made it easier to go into it tho.

 

[MegaManTrigger]

I'm curious how the thoughts on this topic may be with the news Nintendo is finally joining the paid online fray that Microsoft & Sony consoles have established for themselves.

Thank you Microsoft for starting the worst gaming trend ever.