Support NeoGAF

[Jaded Alyx]

I wonder if Steam will ever start charging a monthly/annual subscription fee... at that point, I hope GOG Connect is more robust.

Microsoft tried and failed terribly. No way Valve would even consider it.

 

[Mazzo3]

I don't usually play Nintendo games online all that much, so this is souring me on playing Switch online at all, or even buying Splatoon 2.

 

[Gestault]

I've been using Facebook chat on my phone as a workaround for voice chat online, and I'll probably actually start using Discord, but maaaaan, the more i play online while juggling a separate device for communication, the more I really dislike the Switch as a system.

Is there a single acceptable explanation for why the communication is set up the way it is?

 

[AEREC]

I don't usually play Nintendo games online all that much, so this is souring me on playing Switch online at all, or even buying Splatoon 2.

It costs money to run an online infrastructure...and compared to the competition this is pretty cheap. I will be impressed if they keep the same free DLC model with their first party online focused games.

But since you dont play online much at all seems like an easy choice to not subscribe.

 

[Mazzo3]

It costs money to run an online infrastructure...and compared to the competition this is pretty cheap. I will be impressed if they keep the same free DLC model with their first party online focused games.

But since you dont play online much at all seems like an easy choice to not subscribe.

I'm just used to getting a better deal, I guess.

 

[Taker34]

I'm just used to getting a better deal, I guess.

It's still a good deal. I mean for $60 you can get one year of PS+ or 3 years of Switch online... or you use steam if that's an option.

 

[Nydius]

It's still a good deal. I mean for $60 you can get one year of PS+ or 3 years of Switch online... or you use steam if that's an option.

On top of the same features of online play and occasional "free" games, PS+ gives me a better infrastructure, better tools for communicating with players, better options for interacting with the playing community at large (events calendar, group text chat lobbies), a diverse selection of apps (granted, PS+ not necessary for most of them but the cost of hosting and updating them likely comes directly from PS+ generated funds), and more. Oh, and all users get access to the Playstation App and Playstation Messenger App.

Switch Online... gives me online play, occasional free games, and a poorly constructed app with half assed social functions and limited voice chat.

When you compare all the functions offered by XBL and PS+ designed to support the XBL/PS+ user experience compared to the absolute barebones features offered by Nintendo, the value proposition falls apart.

Before you even start typing this tired excuse, don't give me the "it's Nintendo's first major attempt" defense. Nintendo's not in a vacuum, nor is it their first major attempt (arguably the Wii was; this is their third or fourth attempt if you include the Wii, 3DS, Wii U and now Switch). Microsoft, Sony, and PC have established bare basics for what should be included in a modern 2017 multiplayer service and Nintendo isn't even close. They're not even close to XBL or PSN of 2008, and the latter was completely free.

 

[Saty]

It costs money to run an online infrastructure...and compared to the competition this is pretty cheap.

PC and Mobile host some of the biggest online titles ever (especially mobile). Nobody on these platforms is charging extra fees for online. This argument is a deflection and untrue. Sony, MS and Nintendo charge for online play because they can and because their playerbase accepted it and because presumably they'll bite any bullet.

Costs money? What they fuck are they taking a cut of every game sold for? Here's your money.

 

[Council Pop]

I understand what you're saying, but why did Nintendo change their policy on the monthly subscription with games? It certainly wasn't because of the casual majority you mention.

I think you're underestimating the effect the internet and social media has nowadays.

Of course the sales and how the market react to a product will have more power than a few internet threads, but when it get's to the point that it becomes a trending topic across social media, YouTube etc and big gaming websites start reporting it, then companies pay attention to it, hence why we've had a history of companies making changes before their product even hits the "casual majority".

I think it was probably just because of internal Nintendo decisions. Jason Schreier was talking about this recently actually, on Splitscreen I think, that he had serious doubts that Nintendo of Japan ever responded directly to fans. We certainly have no evidence to suggest it was anything to do with fan backlash (and actually, it was barely a backlash at all). I mean, there is fan backlash about pretty much everything Nintendo do, so I'm not sure why they'd suddenly be swayed on this one issue.

It costs money to run an online infrastructure...and compared to the competition this is pretty cheap.

You know that pricing has basically no relation to production cost, right? This is capitalism 101.