nintendo switch Nintendo Switch Online Service costs money

[Nowak]

1 minute ago, Dan Castellaneta said:

god this thread is a shitshow now

we went from "this service costs money" to emotional defaulting and somehow going on about capitalism and communism

it's amazing isn't it

[Unhelpful]

17 hours ago, NowakVulpix said:

The level of apathy in this thread astounds me. It doesn't have to be this way, y'know.

You are not entitled to luxuries. Nobody owes you video games or services, it's a hobby. If 20/yr will break you financially, you can't afford that hobby. It's pretty simple.

[michaelocarroll007]

14 hours ago, Drak3 said:

Here's a secret.

 

The price of games and memberships haven't risen with inflation.

 

Added monetization in gaming is not just additional profits. Companies are using them to also fund future products, maintain servers, and make updates.

Buttttt.

 

There's many ways of looking at this,

 

Computers used to create video games are way faster

The Amount of people who have the Skills to make video games is more so Cheaper staff

The programs are way more advanced and speed up the process.

Digital distrbution leads to more profits

Larger population of people and Developed countries means scale is larger so youll sell more copies wont have to charge as much.

Games as service being a thing now.

 

Its very confusing area games havent risen with inflation but Theres legit 100s of reasons they should have and shouldnt have. 

 

Activision and EA stock prices are both BY far the highest theyve ever been even with games at the same price of $60

 

[Aldoarip]

Oh hypocrytes. I just hope people defending nintendo doesn't bash nvidia for offering gsync. If you charge money for something so it could be developed better, then it's okay right? I mean gsync is superior than it's counterpart. But somehow I doubt it. "Nvidia is so evil they charge more for gsync, and my mom wouldn't let me bought it so I am stuck with this inferior alternative. I hope nvidia burn in hell" says every amd fanboys ever.

[Sniperfox47]

11 minutes ago, Aldoarip said:

Oh hypocrytes. I just hope people defending nintendo doesn't bash nvidia for offering gsync. If you charge money for something so it could be developed better, then it's okay right? I mean gsync is superior than it's counterpart. But somehow I doubt it. "Nvidia is so evil they charge more for gsync, and my mom wouldn't let me bought it so I am stuck with this inferior alternative. I hope nvidia burn in hell" says every amd fanboys ever.

It's more than a little bit of a different situation since, at least with Gsync 1 vs Freesync 1 it was in part an anticompetitive lock-in to discourage users switching platform since Nvidia has market dominance and gamers who buy a Gsync monitor are thereby discouraged from buying other cards (AMD or an upstart) that use the open VESA Adaptive Sync standard. It's similarly anticompetitive to Apple's attempts to push developers into using Metal or Microsoft's attempts to lock users and developers into UWP.

 

The problem with Gsync is not that it costs more. Even if it was crap it costing more would be fine because there's nothing anticompetitive or anticonsumer about products being overpriced trash. The problem with Gsync is that they implimented it as a proprietary protocol designed to lock users into their ecosystem, while an open standard that was capable of doing the same thing existed.

[Brooksie359]

14 hours ago, Celli said:

It's a good thing I don't fucking follow communism, then, huh?

If you say something racist and then claim to not be racist people will still call you racist. The same applies with communism. What you said has some communist ideology in it so that is why they said that. They weren't assuming anything but rather interpreting what you said. 

[suits]

This thread is hilarious. So many complainers, so many whiners, so many entitled fools. Nintendo just needs to make sure they get the service right. Good quality, fast speeds, and it will be well worth it. 

[Aldoarip]

7 hours ago, Sniperfox47 said:

It's more than a little bit of a different situation since, at least with Gsync 1 vs Freesync 1 it was in part an anticompetitive lock-in to discourage users switching platform since Nvidia has market dominance and gamers who buy a Gsync monitor are thereby discouraged from buying other cards (AMD or an upstart) that use the open VESA Adaptive Sync standard. It's similarly anticompetitive to Apple's attempts to push developers into using Metal or Microsoft's attempts to lock users and developers into UWP.

 

The problem with Gsync is not that it costs more. Even if it was crap it costing more would be fine because there's nothing anticompetitive or anticonsumer about products being overpriced trash. The problem with Gsync is that they implimented it as a proprietary protocol designed to lock users into their ecosystem, while an open standard that was capable of doing the same thing existed.

What's the problem with nvidia "locking" users into their ecosystem? Gsync is better than freesync. No doubts about that. LFC, ULMB, guaranteed 30-144Hz, do I need to say more? Nah, you get the point. Since you mention this "crap" gsync monitor, can you tell us what monitor it is? 

[kv]

6 hours ago, suits said:

This thread is hilarious. So many complainers, so many whiners, so many entitled fools. Nintendo just needs to make sure they get the service right. Good quality, fast speeds, and it will be well worth it. 

Except steam offers all this for free.....Nintendo has a poor track record with online infrastructure

[PlayStation 2]

6 hours ago, suits said:

This thread is hilarious. So many complainers, so many whiners, so many entitled fools. Nintendo just needs to make sure they get the service right. Good quality, fast speeds, and it will be well worth it. 

Thank fuck, someone with sanity.

 

2 minutes ago, kv said:

Except steam offers all this for free.....Nintendo has a poor track record with online infrastructure

Eh, how they handled it with the Wii U was pretty alright, all things considered. I mean they were playing catch-up, but they did alright on the Wii U.

[handymanshandle]

4 minutes ago, kv said:

Except steam offers all this for free.....

Bit of a misconception, the developers end up paying for the service.
As in, 30% of sales goes to Valve.

 

Valve doesn't also sell hardware, well they tried but it didnt go well for them.

 

Often times consoles are sold at a loss to sell more units and make that back through paid subscriptions and first party games.

[kv]

5 minutes ago, Dan Castellaneta said:

Eh, how they handled it with the Wii U was pretty alright, all things considered. I mean they were playing catch-up, but they did alright on the Wii U.

 

Nope, you don't get to play catch-up on implementing a system that two other console makers already worked out the kinks after 10 years. The WiiU online was in a lot of ways worse than the OG Xbox Live from 2003 (Friend codes and poor latency being two big points).

 

2 minutes ago, pinksnowbirdie said:

Bit of a misconception, the developers end up paying for the service.
As in, 30% of sales goes to Valve.

 

Valve doesn't also sell hardware, well they tried but it didnt go well for them.

 

Often times consoles are sold at a loss to sell more units and make that back through paid subscriptions and first party games.

3

Console platforms take large cuts when games are published on their platforms - that's been the system way before steam existed. Not to mention the Switch was already being sold at a profit from day one.

 

Also I'm pretty sure nintendo won't be setting up dedicated servers and instead relying on either the developer or peer-to-peer to handle that.

[handymanshandle]

Just now, kv said:

Nope, you don't get to play catch-up on implementing a system that two other console makers already worked out the kinks after 10 years. The WiiU online was in a lot of ways worse than the OG Xbox Live from 2003 (Friend codes and poor latency being two big points).

 

Console platforms take large cuts when games are published on their platforms - that's been the system way before steam existed. Not to mention the Switch was already being sold at a profit from day one.

 

Also I'm pretty sure nintendo won't be setting up dedicated servers and instead relying on either the developer or peer-to-peer to handle that.

Who knows they could be, but then. Perhaps there's other things Nintendo has in mind for the Switch and its service that it needs to accumulate funds for.

[suits]

1 hour ago, kv said:

Except steam offers all this for free.....Nintendo has a poor track record with online infrastructure

Nothing in life is free my friend. I assure you you are paying for it some way will how. 

[Sky Spark]

12 hours ago, Brooksie359 said:

If you say something racist and then claim to not be racist people will still call you racist. The same applies with communism. What you said has some communist ideology in it so that is why they said that. They weren't assuming anything but rather interpreting what you said. 

Okay

[Sniperfox47]

5 hours ago, Aldoarip said:

What's the problem with nvidia "locking" users into their ecosystem? Gsync is better than freesync. No doubts about that. LFC, ULMB, guaranteed 30-144Hz, do I need to say more? Nah, you get the point. Since you mention this "crap" gsync monitor, can you tell us what monitor it is? 

Way to totally misread my comment.

Not the topic for this so I won't be replying past this comment but as I mentioned the problem with that is that ecosystem lock-in is inherrently anti-competitive.

And next time you might want to read the "Even if it was[...]" so you don't make a fool of yourself. I never said there was a crap Gsync monitor.

 

3 hours ago, kv said:

Nope, you don't get to play catch-up on implementing a system that two other console makers already worked out the kinks after 10 years. The WiiU online was in a lot of ways worse than the OG Xbox Live from 2003 (Friend codes and poor latency being two big points).

*Facepalm* you're talking about companies with *vastly* different levels of resources. Microsoft has a  total assets of about 258 billion. Sony of 177 billion. Nintendo of 15 billion. Literally less than 1/10th either competitor. Sony and Microsoft do other things and large chunks of those assets aren't available to their gaming department, but much of it is things the gaming section can leverage.

 

You don't build out a fricken massive CDN overnight. It takes time to set up the infrastructure, it takes time for developers to set up the software side, and it takes lots of money for both of those as well.

 

By contrast both Sony and Microsoft had networks they could scale from other parts of their bussiness anyways. They have more traditional software and kernel devs from their various other devices they can lean on to help build OSes.

 

The difference is literally the same kind of difference between Intel and AMD.

 

3 hours ago, kv said:

 

Console platforms take large cuts when games are published on their platforms - that's been the system way before steam existed. Not to mention the Switch was already being sold at a profit from day one.

As has been mentioned *MULTIPLE* times in this thread already console makers, including Nintendo, take about a 15% cut compared to Steam's 30%. Especially with small indie devs this matters. It's why the switch has been such a massive success for indie devs (minus those that release physical copies. RIP Binding of Issac.)

 

3 hours ago, kv said:

 

Also I'm pretty sure nintendo won't be setting up dedicated servers and instead relying on either the developer or peer-to-peer to handle that.

Nintendo *has* already got dedicated servers... most first-party games use P2P gameplay for Nintendo because that works way better for their Japanese audience. Nintendo for better or worse is one of the most Japanese international corporations you will find.

 

And as has been mentioned, again *multiple* times, even peer to peer requires dedicated servers for matchmaking, NAT penetration, and many other aspects.

[Drak3]

8 hours ago, suits said:

Nothing in life is free my friend. I assure you you are paying for it some way will how. 

The end users aren't paying for Steam services. Game developers are.

[Aldoarip]

7 hours ago, Sniperfox47 said:

Way to totally misread my comment.

Not the topic for this so I won't be replying past this comment but as I mentioned the problem with that is that ecosystem lock-in is inherrently anti-competitive.

And next time you might want to read the "Even if it was[...]" so you don't make a fool of yourself. I never said there was a crap Gsync monitor.

Anti competitive? Tell that to AMD who happens to be using existing standard, put their name on it, throws it at the market and hope someone will develop it. ULMB amd equivalent? Nothing. LFC across all freesync monitors? Not gonna happen on current freesync. Guaranteed 30-144Hz? Half-life 3 is more likely at this point. Somehow Nvidia is anticompetitive, while actually they are the one developing something BETTER and that is COMPETITIVE.

 

I know what "even if it was" mean. The thing is you are just imagining things, because there is NO "crap" gsync monitor. Your can't make an argument, so you resort to imagining shits. You are the one making a fool of yourself.