New game by I Am Setsuna developers:
The Nintendo Thread
-
-
Heh from that trailer it looks a whole lot to me like a Tales Of wannabe with mobile graphics. Other than the fact that combat seems at least somewhat turn-based.
-
Anyone doing the Arms testpunch? Can't really decide whether I had fun or whether I'm really pissed.
I had Phoenix Comicon that weekend, but they're doing another one next weekend that I intend to jump on.
-
A Nintendo Switch was dropped 1000ft the console itself was functional the left joycon got destroyed though
-
I would say those are reasonable loses considering the damage it should have taken.
-
The thing is, it landed completely on its side, where the left joycon is. The joycon got obliterated because it absorbed the entire impact, by shattering as well as partially sliding off since it's not permanently attached (which I imagine makes a big difference).
I doubt there's any way the actual Switch would survive if the impact hit the actual device. Maybe it would still power on, but it would not be functional.
-
Ah kinda like, because the joycon is not part of the switch, the shock was absorbed and dissipated greatly through the gaps?
-
Not really through the gaps, but through the destruction of the joycon (which absorbs a LOT of energy and momentum; this is why cars have crumple zones – it's the same principle: the front of your car gets really bent up but the important things are unharmed), and further by the fact that the joycon was able to slide partway off, preventing torsion and dissipating even more energy.
-
We need mythbusters on this
-
I'd be content to just have them drop one without joycons attached. Also preferable somewhere not so windy that it drifts 20 feet upon release and lands against the side of a curb.
-
Speaking of dropping things, Nintendo of America has finally just dropped the full details on the Switch's online service.
Those pricing options ain't too shabby; Only $20 for an entire year. There's still a distinct lack of any cloud-saving going on, so hopefully that gets introduced sooner or later.
-
In my opinion that pretty good price for online.
-
That's not terrible, but it's still a wall that will stop people who don't play multiplayer regularly from going online in Smash Bros or Mario Kart on a whim.
-
I'm torn on this, I had PS+ years ago when it was an optional thing an once they forced it on us I kept it for a year, realised it was a waste of money and cancelled it. I barely play online save for some Nintendo stuff here and there and was the main reason I bothered with Minecraft Wii U cus it was free.
But to be fair this is not a bad price. £20 a year equates to less than £2 a month, and throwing in the VC stuff (which I probably would have picked up some anyways for handheld) makes it work out better. I'm still on the fence but far more willing to try it. Just hope the games offered are decent.
-
£20 a year equates to less than £2 a month, and throwing in the VC stuff (which I probably would have picked up some anyways for handheld) makes it work out better. I'm still on the fence but far more willing to try it. Just hope the games offered are decent.
You don't get to keep the games, though. They're only playable for as long as your subscription is active.
-
While I suppose that rate isn't ridiculously high, like others here I just don't play online much. I play games so sporadically. I just liked online being there when I needed it. I already pay monthly for so many other services and bills. Paying for online gaming services is just not even on my radar.
And NES games? Meh. So meh. I don't even care that they have added online play. They're still games that I've either played or have had every opportunity to play I could have ever wanted. And you only get them temporarily. So Nintendo can try to convince you to purchase them again? TBH, NES games (or at least the ones we'll see here) have already been easily available for ages. They're nothing exciting. And I'm kind of tired of NES games being shoved in my face. As I said, I've played all of them that I ever need to.
You need more exciting incentives Nintendo. A company that has been notoriously bad at even making a free online service satisfying for customers sure is already skating on thin ice by even thinking of charging for their online services.
-
That's not terrible, but it's still a wall that will stop people who don't play multiplayer regularly from going online in Smash Bros or Mario Kart on a whim.
I'm sorry, but if you spend that much money on a switch and on those games you mention, and yet cannot pay something as measly as $20 A YEAR, or even $4 a month, then that's just being goddamn cheap.
I'm more concerned about how the quality of the online measures up.
And yea, you don't keep the games, which is just like how if you do Netflix you don't keep the movies. You talk about this model like people aren't used to it.
-
I'm sorry, but if you spend that much money on a switch and on those games you mention, and yet cannot pay something as measly as $20 A YEAR, or even $4 a month, then that's just being goddamn cheap.
That's an extra unexpected fee on top of the system and game.
My thinking is that I'd spend $20 on the online and then only play the game for a month or two and then never play it online for the remainder of that year. That's such a waste. But that's the way I play games, it's very rare they last beyond a month for me. Pokemon Sun didn't even last two weeks for me. lol. And really, with the Wii U, I don't think I touched the system much at all in between Super Smash Bros. 4 and Breath of the Wild. Dry spells like that make it very hard to convince me to even begin to think of paying for online. After all, it's VERY likely I would only enjoy what I paid for for a very short amount of time.
I also can totally see this happening: They make a game that I want to come back to someday and I want to play it online, but I'm totally discouraged because that would cost an extra $20. It may not sound like much, but I'm a college student with my own apartment and bills. I'm lucky to be able to afford a game here and there with gift money. I'd tell myself "I can't afford this" and thus be discouraged.
And yea, you don't keep the games, which is just like how if you do Netflix you don't keep the movies. You talk about this model like people aren't used to it.
I don't think these are exactly comparable situations. Renting a movie/show is a bit different from renting a video game. Of course, I speak for myself here because I know some people are different. However, a movie/show I'm satisfied watching once and moving on. A video game can be a different matter.
My point is that different people think different about "renting"/"streaming" various forms of media. Like I think paying to rent music is absurd, I need to own it. But streaming movies/shows I'm just fine with. So I subscribe to Crunchyroll, but I'll never subscribe to Spotify.
Besides, it's not like Nintendo's offering brand new Switch games for subscribing, they're offering NES games. Games that Nintendo has rereleased a hundred thousand times, and have even given away for free like for the people who got 3DS's close to release. They'll certainly turn around and expect people spend money on these games afterward. Again… Because I'm sure a lot of people have already purchased them several times due to Nintendo's wonky VC systems.
Although my personal thinking is that the NES games are not even a 'benefit' I even care about. It simply isn't an incentive for me.
-
It would be nice and all to get quality online service for free, but it doesn't happen in this day and age. Nintendo's model so far has been awful online service for free. The hope is that by charging a small amount, they can use that money to actually maintain decent infrastructure. It will of course be upsetting if they have the same crappy quality except now I'm paying for it. The NES games and whatnot are just a small added perk and I don't think they're marketing that as the main selling point for the service in the way PS+ did.
But yeah if none of the features appeal to you and you veeeeeery rarely play online, then I guess it sucks to be you on those blue moons where you feel like it. But at the same time it doesn't feel like a huge loss, just like paying $20 a year isn't a huge loss for most people's wallet. Also you can pay for a single month if you really get the itch.
-
Even with handling your own expenses [ I do so too], it is rarely the case that you only have the exact amount of money for all your needs[Like having 0$ after all your mandatory expenses]. Not talking specifically about you Envy more so in general. So a good budget plan should be able to accomodate not only your needs but desires. Isn't Crunchyroll a monthly expense which also has a free platform? By not using Crunchyroll for 3 months you still get their service and you would be able to have a yearly subscription to the online services for Nintendo. Or, you can save $2 each month and you would be able to pay for the entire year and guarantee you always have a subscription after your first payment, not to mention keeping your Crunchyroll premium account.
However, considering that you are not really someone that is going to be 3-4 times a week each month playing, of course it would not be appealing. The same way playing WoW is not appealing to me, because I cannot guarantee that level of commitment to squeeze out my money's worth.
We also have to consider that the Switch is in its first year, and considering it has made quite the impact, unless their service is horrible, the added benefits should go up from this initial stages.
-
That's an extra unexpected fee on top of the system and game.
You mean the sort of unexpected where they warn you about it almost a year in advance before putting it in place?
My thinking is that I'd spend $20 on the online and then only play the game for a month or two and then never play it online for the remainder of that year. That's such a waste. But that's the way I play games, it's very rare they last beyond a month for me. Pokemon Sun didn't even last two weeks for me. lol. And really, with the Wii U, I don't think I touched the system much at all in between Super Smash Bros. 4 and Breath of the Wild. Dry spells like that make it very hard to convince me to even begin to think of paying for online. After all, it's VERY likely I would only enjoy what I paid for for a very short amount of time.
This is why they also offer models of payment where you pay $4 bucks and get a month of online, or $8 for three I think? So they're clearly aware that not everyone out there will want an entire year of uninterrupted service
I also can totally see this happening: They make a game that I want to come back to someday and I want to play it online, but I'm totally discouraged because that would cost an extra $20. It may not sound like much, but I'm a college student with my own apartment and bills. I'm lucky to be able to afford a game here and there with gift money. I'd tell myself "I can't afford this" and thus be discouraged.
Again, you could just pay $4 instead. And yea, I get that comparatively it's nice for things to be free, but the fact is that it makes them to charge for a service, particularly if they intent to make that service functional and competent when you have such a large user base and such demanding games.
Not to mention that by virtue of being on Switch, all first party games and a lot of third party ones are bound to consider the offline experience as well, since regularly people won't have stable connections on the go. So you can still enjoy a lot of aspects of the games that you buy even if you don't invest in online. It'd be a little bit more understandable to be appalled if it were something like having to pay online to play games that require you to be online just to play, like Overwatch.
And again, I understand the notion that sometimes you just don't have the money. What I was mainly responding to was Roboblue's notion that $20 is a wall for people clearly invested in playing things like Mario Kart and Smash Bros and thus something bad. $20 a month isn't an insurmountable wall. I bet a lot of casual players out there spend more than that a year on free-to-play games or cosmetic DLC for mobile games. As such, the pricing is neither unreasonable or insurmountable.
I don't think these are exactly comparable situations. Renting a movie/show is a bit different from renting a video game. Of course, I speak for myself here because I know some people are different. However, a movie/show I'm satisfied watching once and moving on. A video game can be a different matter.
You said it yourself: your point is based entirely on subjective experience. To some people, you get a game and you play it for years as much as possible, just like some people buy movies and rewatch over and over. To others, you beat the game and don't look at it again, and likewise sometimes you just rent movies when you want to watch them but don't bother owning them.
Using your own personal experience to discredit the fact that content streaming is a norm now is thus nonsensical. Sure, not everyone pays monthly/yearly prime or netflix fees to watch movies they might not care about, but considering how their portfolio and finances continue to grow the understanding is that the model appeals to enough of the market to be viable.
Same with games. PS Plus and now Xbox Game Pass also stream games, which you lose the second you stop paying for the account. Does everyone use these? of course not, but the fact they exist and have certain degrees of success goes to show there's a market for that business plan, and a lot of people won't care about owning a game as much as they will about being able to play several games whenever they want while paying a yearly fee instead of spending $60-$70 a pop for a game they don't even know they'll like or not.
Sure, videogames are different in how they feel to a lot of people, but when considering the average consumer, it's all media consumption, and the question of accessibility in a digital era means a lot more than the question of ownership, to good and bad effect depending on who you talk to.Besides, it's not like Nintendo's offering brand new Switch games for subscribing, they're offering NES games. Games that Nintendo has rereleased a hundred thousand times, and have even given away for free like for the people who got 3DS's close to release. They'll certainly turn around and expect people spend money on these games afterward. Again… Because I'm sure a lot of people have already purchased them several times due to Nintendo's wonky VC systems.
Although my personal thinking is that the NES games are not even a 'benefit' I even care about. It simply isn't an incentive for me.
I don't disagree with this. As much as I love Balloon Fight and expect to play the ever-living hell out of it, NES games are just a tremendously weak way to launch such a service, particularly when Nintendo has such a desirable backlog of properties. It also shies in comparison to what other companies are doing in terms of making their games accessible.
It also bothers me the implication that they hesitate to talk about Virtual Console, and given the (ugh) success of the NES Mini I fear that they might restrict those games to cheap plastic hardware as long as people bite.
But ultimately, my point is just disagreeing with Roboblue that losing access to those games upon not paying for online is discouragement in any way whatsoever. I cannot envision a circumstance of someone feeling stronghanded into paying for more online in order to keep on playing Dr. Mario. And the notion of resenting the service for keeping your content to me is akin to participating in Netflix of PS Plus or Hulu or (etc.), and then resenting the service for not letting you keep content when the subscription ends.
-
@K.:
Even with handling your own expenses [ I do so too], it is rarely the case that you only have the exact amount of money for all your needs[Like having 0$ after all your mandatory expenses]. Not talking specifically about you Envy more so in general. So a good budget plan should be able to accomodate not only your needs but desires. Isn't Crunchyroll a monthly expense which also has a free platform? By not using Crunchyroll for 3 months you still get their service and you would be able to have a yearly subscription to the online services for Nintendo. Or, you can save $2 each month and you would be able to pay for the entire year and guarantee you always have a subscription after your first payment, not to mention keeping your Crunchyroll premium account.
Crunchyroll is a service I regularly use. There's always at least two shows I am keeping up with weekly in any given season, and I often go back and watch older series that I got interested in. Thus, I saw it was a service worth keeping after I quit my job to go back to school.
Can't say the same thing for Nintendo. As I said, I don't play games long enough, and Nintendo really doesn't have a steady stream of games coming out at any time.
I don't really have a solid 'budget' to look at things from. I only spend the money my parents give me for spending and I leave the rest to pay bills, food, and school-related stuff. Attempting to set aside money for a yearly subscription would probably cancel out being able to get a game to begin with. I'm trying to find a summer job, but that's turning out to be quite difficult for me. =(
You mean the sort of unexpected where they warn you about it almost a year in advance before putting it in place?
Unexpected as in it's never been a thing before. I've always been able to play Mario Kart online for free. So now it would be an unexpected fee.
This is why they also offer models of payment where you pay $4 bucks and get a month of online, or $8 for three I think? So they're clearly aware that not everyone out there will want an entire year of uninterrupted service
But then there's always the "It costs less to pay for a full year" kind of deal that would be weighing on the back of my mind. I don't know, maybe Nintendo would make a game that would keep me playing longer than other titles in previous years. And I never know that they might announce a good online game coming at the end of the year that I couldn't foresee when deciding to pay for some months.
Either way it just discourages me. I do not need extra fees. But I suppose the Switch hasn't even made itself worth purchasing to begin with for me, so… Maybe it will stay that way for quite some time. I doubt it will be until the projected three or so years when I'm out of graduate school, though.
Again, you could just pay $4 instead. And yea, I get that comparatively it's nice for things to be free, but the fact is that it makes them to charge for a service, particularly if they intent to make that service functional and competent when you have such a large user base and such demanding games.
Funny but nowhere did I ever see Nintendo give this reason. All they did during the Switch announcement direct was say "Oh, by the way, there will be a paid online service by Fall" and moved on.
Would have been nice if they had said "We know that gamers have had an issue with certain aspects of our online services, with this new paid service we will ensure that our online service addresses these issues and sees improvement". But nope, none of that.
Not to mention that by virtue of being on Switch, all first party games and a lot of third party ones are bound to consider the offline experience as well, since regularly people won't have stable connections on the go. So you can still enjoy a lot of aspects of the games that you buy even if you don't invest in online. It'd be a little bit more understandable to be appalled if it were something like having to pay online to play games that require you to be online just to play, like Overwatch.
I think of Animal Crossing. While it may have been fun as a single-player game to me back in the GCN days I really need it online to enjoy it now. Especially New Leaf. Playing that game without Wi-Fi was a pain in the butt sometimes. And then if a mainline Pokemon game comes to the Switch (and it's better than Sun/Moon, mind you) that would also be a major problem.
And the notion of resenting the service for keeping your content to me is akin to participating in Netflix of PS Plus or Hulu or (etc.), and then resenting the service for not letting you keep content when the subscription ends.
It's just a completely different mindset. TV shows and movies long have had an option to watch them once (movie theaters, rental services, TV airings), so we are accustomed to not owning that kind of media. Video games are a different situation. But I admit I've never had PS+ and I have never had an Xbox console so I don't know what either of those online services are ever like.
I have to admit the root of this all for me is that I've just never thought of gaming online to be something to pay for. So I hold a gaming company to very high standards if they're going to make me pay online. NES games that you only have for a month doesn't cut it. Those games should just be given permanently at this point.
-
I don't mind you having your own personal standards for what makes sense or doesn't. I just disagree with the notion of saying things like Nintendo being on thin ice or at fault for your own personal lack of interest in the inevitable direction the industry is taking.
-
Crunchyroll is a service I regularly use. There's always at least two shows I am keeping up with weekly in any given season, and I often go back and watch older series that I got interested in. Thus, I saw it was a service worth keeping after I quit my job to go back to school.
I was under the impression that besides the early releases for some episodes, you could use Crunchyroll's entire anime features for free. So the suggestion was more in line with you wouldn't lose the service but still gain one. I may be wrong about this, that is why I gave the other suggestion.
Can't say the same thing for Nintendo. As I said, I don't play games long enough, and Nintendo really doesn't have a steady stream of games coming out at any time.
That's what it boils down to for paid services, how much are you using the service to merit the expense.
I don't really have a solid 'budget' to look at things from. I only spend the money my parents give me for spending and I leave the rest to pay bills, food, and school-related stuff. Attempting to set aside money for a yearly subscription would probably cancel out being able to get a game to begin with. I'm trying to find a summer job, but that's turning out to be quite difficult for me. =(
I hear you, I am in a similar boat that's why I said if you could save 2$ a month it could be feasible, but if the budget is that tight then…I hope we both get summer jobs! [Waiting on a company to contact me back, fingers le crossed.]
-
I don't mind you having your own personal standards for what makes sense or doesn't. I just disagree with the notion of saying things like Nintendo being on thin ice or at fault for your own personal lack of interest in the inevitable direction the industry is taking.
My statement that Nintendo is on thin ice year is actually pretty unrelated to my personal preferences. My claim there was based on the fact that Nintendo, never before having an online system that is considered competent even as a free service, coming out and randomly saying that the next system (after the not-so-successful Wii U) will have paid online system is skating on thin ice.
It might have been different if they were to show a major improvement in the online system to warrant this, but have they done so? (I don't have a Switch, so I wouldn't know).
@K.:
I was under the impression that besides the early releases for some episodes, you could use Crunchyroll's entire anime features for free. So the suggestion was more in line with you wouldn't lose the service but still gain one. I may be wrong about this, that is why I gave the other suggestion.
I suppose you're right that I'm only paying for early access, HD, and no commercials. In that case it probably isn't actually the best thing for me to keep on purchasing. >.<
With my budget not being concrete, truth is if I stopped paying for CR, I probably would save the money in its place.
I hear you, I am in a similar boat that's why I said if you could save 2$ a month it could be feasible, but if the budget is that tight then…I hope we both get summer jobs! [Waiting on a company to contact me back, fingers le crossed.]
Good luck!
-
My statement that Nintendo is on thin ice year is actually pretty unrelated to my personal preferences. My claim there was based on the fact that Nintendo, never before having an online system that is considered competent even as a free service, coming out and randomly saying that the next system (after the not-so-successful Wii U) will have paid online system is skating on thin ice.
Yea, no. Sorry, but that's just hilariously wrong.
-
Yea, no. Sorry, but that's just hilariously wrong.
Care to explain?
I think this response is a little rude. You didn't even answer if the Switch had improved Nintendo's online services.
-
Well Envy what is the basis for your claims if not just your personal opinion? The Switch is already massively successful, so it sure as hell isn't putting them on financial thin ice in terms of sales. And I don't see a Switch fanbase revolution calling for a boycott. If you're going to claim that this policy objectively puts Nintendo on thin ice, you kind of need some sort of basis for that.
Whether the online services improve will basically depend on how Splatoon 2 performs. That's the game where strong network performance is crucial (it's basically irrelevant in games like Mario Kart). So we'll find out in the latter 6 months of the year, during which the service will still be free so everyone has plenty of a fair chance to try it and decide whether or not to buy in. In the meantime, the reasonable expectation is that they're starting to charge because they need to cover new infrastructure costs.
-
Care to explain?
I think this response is a little rude. You didn't even answer if the Switch had improved Nintendo's online services.
The response is rude because trying to converse with you feels frustrating.
When you say a line so withdrawn from the current state of the industry, so withdrawn for stuff has been going on for the past several years of the industry, while stating it as an objective reality, it shows that you don't know and don't care. Moreso because I get the impression, based on your responses so far, that ultimately anything you are told will be disregarded because it doesn't adhere to your own, personal, individual experience. One which gives the impression that you have no interest in games, just very particular experiences and moments you still expect companies to cater to.
Maybe it's just a poor online impression, but that's just the vibe I get, and with that being the case, I honestly don't feel like explaining it to you.
There's no goal to convince because you don't want to be convinced
There's no goal to educate because I doubt anyone else out there would agree that online services requiring payment is a random, unexpected fee in 2017, or the notion that Nintendo is currently on thin ice. And I get the impression you don't actually care about the content of the discussion, but just about being right in your particular perspective.But sure, if I'm wrong and you actually care about this discussion let me know and I'd love to talk more about it. And if you don't care that's ok, not everyone has to be into how the sausage is made in order to have an opinion about it, and like I said, I don't mind acknowledging you just have different interests and opinions.
Also, I know it's none of my business, but saving $2 a month is absolutely nothing.
It's such a small amount people accidentally eat that in their sleep and don't notice
It's such a small amount you drop it in the toilet and still flush
It's such a small amount that you shrug it off when paying it as retail tax when buying anything
And I say this as someone who has straddled the poverty line multiple times before. But yea, nonetheless telling you how to spend your money is none of my business, so I'll leave it at that. -
Well Envy what is the basis for your claims if not just your personal opinion? The Switch is already massively successful, so it sure as hell isn't putting them on financial thin ice in terms of sales. And I don't see a Switch fanbase revolution calling for a boycott. If you're going to claim that this policy objectively puts Nintendo on thin ice, you kind of need some sort of basis for that.
Whether the online services improve will basically depend on how Splatoon 2 performs. That's the game where strong network performance is crucial (it's basically irrelevant in games like Mario Kart). So we'll find out in the latter 6 months of the year, during which the service will still be free so everyone has plenty of a fair chance to try it and decide whether or not to buy in. In the meantime, the reasonable expectation is that they're starting to charge because they need to cover new infrastructure costs.
Thank you for answering. I suppose when I stopped and thought about if paid online would stop people, that's probably not true. It's just hard not to see how it wouldn't hurt Nintendo when all I've seen are complaints about their online infrastructure for so long.
The response is rude because trying to converse with you feels frustrating.
When you say a line so withdrawn from the current state of the industry, so withdrawn for stuff has been going on for the past several years of the industry, while stating it as an objective reality, it shows that you don't know and don't care. Moreso because I get the impression, based on your responses so far, that ultimately anything you are told will be disregarded because it doesn't adhere to your own, personal, individual experience. One which gives the impression that you have no interest in games, just very particular experiences and moments you still expect companies to cater to.
Maybe it's just a poor online impression, but that's just the vibe I get, and with that being the case, I honestly don't feel like explaining it to you.
There's no goal to convince because you don't want to be convinced
There's no goal to educate because I doubt anyone else out there would agree that online services requiring payment is a random, unexpected fee in 2017, or the notion that Nintendo is currently on thin ice. And I get the impression you don't actually care about the content of the discussion, but just about being right in your particular perspective.But sure, if I'm wrong and you actually care about this discussion let me know and I'd love to talk more about it. And if you don't care that's ok, not everyone has to be into how the sausage is made in order to have an opinion about it, and like I said, I don't mind acknowledging you just have different interests and opinions.
I post what I've legitimately come to believe.
I've been on online communities for a long time and have seen people constantly whine about Nintendo's online and then I saw how the Wii U was not successful. When Nintendo announced that they were going to start a paid online service during the Switch presentation and I also saw that the system fell into a lot of the same pitfalls that the Wii U did, I couldn't help but form this view. It seemed like such an outrageous move. Of course, I was aware that other consoles had paid online services, but Nintendo has always done their own thing. I just could not believe that Nintendo would come out with this when they were supposed to be convincing people that the Switch would be worth investing in after the Wii U. A paid online service somewhere down the road after they have proven themselves is one thing, but right now just seems like a really bad time.
So, yes, I'm legitimately curious how this could be wrong.
I am into games. I can't lie, there has been a slump for a very long time where I mostly played games out of nostalgia. But that has begun to see a little bit of a change with Breath of the Wild. I loved Breath of the Wild as a new game, a new experience. It had its own magic that I honestly had not felt in a game since my mid-teens (over a decade ago).
Also, I know it's none of my business, but saving $2 a month is absolutely nothing.
It's such a small amount people accidentally eat that in their sleep and don't notice
It's such a small amount you drop it in the toilet and still flush
It's such a small amount that you shrug it off when paying it as retail tax when buying anything
And I say this as someone who has straddled the poverty line multiple times before. But yea, nonetheless telling you how to spend your money is none of my business, so I'll leave it at that.As I said, I don't have a concrete 'budget'. It's ridiculous that I think this way, but it's just the way it is.
If I save $2 from something else, it stays in my savings for something important. That's just how I think. Truth be told, I'm not even sure how I'd be able to get a Switch at this point…
-
It's just hard not to see how it wouldn't hurt Nintendo when all I've seen are complaints about their online infrastructure for so long.
You can view this with optimism or pessimism, but the way I see it, starting to charge for online service means they are making a commitment. First of all the hope is that those extra fees aren't just Nintendo execs dreaming up a new way to line their pockets, but rather wanting to actually invest that money into their online infrastructure and improve it (how else did you expect that would happen?). Like every other console manufacturer. Second of all, having it be a paid subscription service creates a lot more responsibility for Nintendo. When you have paying customers, it's a real thing. They have liability if things go wrong. And hopefully it also means they'll hold themselves to a higher standard.
-
I post what I've legitimately come to believe.
I've been on online communities for a long time and have seen people constantly whine about Nintendo's online and then I saw how the Wii U was not successful. When Nintendo announced that they were going to start a paid online service during the Switch presentation and I also saw that the system fell into a lot of the same pitfalls that the Wii U did, I couldn't help but form this view. It seemed like such an outrageous move. Of course, I was aware that other consoles had paid online services, but Nintendo has always done their own thing. I just could not believe that Nintendo would come out with this when they were supposed to be convincing people that the Switch would be worth investing in after the Wii U. A paid online service somewhere down the road after they have proven themselves is one thing, but right now just seems like a really bad time.
So, yes, I'm legitimately curious how this could be wrong.
I am into games. I can't lie, there has been a slump for a very long time where I mostly played games out of nostalgia. But that has begun to see a little bit of a change with Breath of the Wild. I loved Breath of the Wild as a new game, a new experience. It had its own magic that I honestly had not felt in a game since my mid-teens (over a decade ago).
Fans will always complain about game companies, it's inevitable. Basing assumptions of how a company is doing just from that is therefore bound to give false conclusions.
Foo already covered most of the points on the inaccuracy of your statement. I'd also thrown in things like a core of Nintendo's marketing being focused on offline multiplayer experiences, things like them having other sources of constant revenue like mobile games and stuff like the NES mini and eventual SNES mini, and the fact their finances are strong enough to be at their highest stock value since 2008 and at the point where they invest in theme parks and other uses of their properties.
For the online thing, other companies have been charging for online services for over 15 or so years already, probably more? (not sure if the famicom satellite service and others like that was a paid service). Nintendo kept it free given they introduced it massively with the DS and Wii, a generation that was characterized by focus on accessibility. Their goal was to give casual players the possibility of playing online without scaring them off.
Nowadays the expectation is higher when it comes to technical quality and performance. Hence the need to invest further and have users pay in order to boost sustainment of online features. And $20 is still fairly competitive in terms particularly of how much less it offers compared to other companies:
https://www.polygon.com/2017/6/2/15729236/nintendo-switch-online-comparison-playstation-plus-xbox-live-goldAlso, more as a side note, there's so much of the word "believe" in your post that it kinda bothers me that earlier you were saying your comments weren't based on personal belief. Some things need more than belief, namely actual supporting evidence and data-based conclusions.
-
You can view this with optimism or pessimism, but the way I see it, starting to charge for online service means they are making a commitment. First of all the hope is that those extra fees aren't just Nintendo execs dreaming up a new way to line their pockets, but rather wanting to actually invest that money into their online infrastructure and improve it (how else did you expect that would happen?). Like every other console manufacturer. Second of all, having it be a paid subscription service creates a lot more responsibility for Nintendo. When you have paying customers, it's a real thing. They have liability if things go wrong. And hopefully it also means they'll hold themselves to a higher standard.
Totally agree, when I first heard Nintendo was going to do paid online I was encouraged right off the bat. Free online is just not going to be very good, and considering server and infrastructure costs I don't think it's even fair to expect it to be very good.
Also encouraged that they're scrapping the stupid one VC game a month idea they had. Sure Nintendo is still tightfisted with their old games but at least they recognized how terrible that initial offering was.
-
I'm sorry, but if you spend that much money on a switch and on those games you mention, and yet cannot pay something as measly as $20 A YEAR, or even $4 a month, then that's just being goddamn cheap.
I'm more concerned about how the quality of the online measures up.
And yea, you don't keep the games, which is just like how if you do Netflix you don't keep the movies. You talk about this model like people aren't used to it.
Netflix's entire catalog is available at any time, though. If they offered a deluxe membership for 30 or 40 a year and gave full access to the whole first party catalog, I could get excited about that.
There's just no reason to get excited about the chance to only temporarily rent something I could own _now_.…And yes, I'm cheap. It's an increasingly necessary trait. :p
Also encouraged that they're scrapping the stupid one VC game a month idea they had. Sure Nintendo is still tightfisted with their old games but at least they recognized how terrible that initial offering was.
Wait, when did they confirm that?
-
Pokemon Direct tomorrow: https://www.nintendo.co.jp/nintendo_direct/20170606/index.html
-
Wait, what? Right before E3? o.O I know Pokemon used to not show up at E3 but that was changed in recent years. What on earth could this be about?
-
I'm scheduled to be on a plane at 10 tomorrow but eh, they never leave on time anyway.
-
Isn't it pretty rare for Pokemon to be in directs?
-
This post is deleted!
-
@The:
Pokemon Direct tomorrow: https://www.nintendo.co.jp/nintendo_direct/20170606/index.html
You should announce it in a couple more threads in case some people don't notice :ninja:
-
You should announce it in a couple more threads in case some people don't notice :ninja:
Well, to be honest, this was probably the best topic to announce it in. I don't generally check the Pokemon topics, so this was the first I heard of it.
-
Just teasing him. Was amused to see the post in three threads in the span of seconds.
-
My hopes are on GenIV remakes. If not, then Stars.
But I will not get excited since it can always be Pokkén… or even something anime related.
-
My hope (but not necessarily expectation) is for Diamond/Pearl remakes. Personally I wasn't too impressed with Sun/Moon and would need some time before I'd even consider a third version. (With that said, the last third version I purchased was Crystal, so…).
Diamond/Pearl were really fun. I'd like to see them reimagined. Pokemon remakes are always really good.
-
If virtual console on Switch were more of a thing I'd wonder about Gold and Silver VC. Heck, they might put them on 3DS to sell the new 2DS XL, questionable as that decision would be.
-
I'm going to go with they're going to be going back to Kanto Region (though not limited to just that region) with a game to reboot the series as well as coincide with the new movie (which releases next month in Japan)
-
I'm going to go with they're going to be going back to Kanto Region (though not limited to just that region) with a game to reboot the series as well as coincide with the new movie (which releases next month in Japan)
Haven't they done enough Generation I pandering? =/
I definitely don't think they'd do a Direct to announce G/S/C coming to the VC, though. It's hard to say what this one will be about.
-
Haven't they done enough Generation I pandering? =/
HGSS was the last game to use Kanto Region and that was 7 years ago so probably not as much as you think.
-
Pokemon Direct huh?
Diamond/Pearl Remake? Probably, wouldn't say no to that.
-
HGSS was the last game to use Kanto Region and that was 7 years ago so probably not as much as you think.
I'm not referring specifically to Kanto. I just feel like Pokemon games as of late have gone overboard with focusing on Generation I. If they could have shoved Kanto somewhere in Sun/Moon I feel like they probably would have.
A game focusing on Kanto again would feel like overkill to me. Even for someone who has plenty of nostalgia for Generation I. Generation I had plenty of references thrown into Sun/Moon. Plus all of the Alolan variations being all Generation I Pokemon.
They could probably go for another Red/Blue remake somewhere down the line, but right now I feel like they need to give the Generation I stuff a rest for a while. So many other great Pokemon/generations to celebrate.