nintendo switch Nintendo Switch Online Service costs money

[Demonking]

9 hours ago, Sniperfox47 said:

For all the people pointing out that games nowadays are P2P or on servers run by the developer I just want to point out that the CDNs, which cost *astronomically* more to maintain are not P2P and are run by the console devs.

 

For all the people pointing out that you don't pay to use Valve's servers for steam I want to point out that yeah... You do... Valve's cut on games is ~30%. On consoles that's closer to 15% on digital games and 10% on physical games plus ~5% for manufacturing costs (it varies from console to console and developer to developer). The switch gets hit particularly hard on physical games because of the costs of the actual storage medium being so much higher. Also take into note that Valve makes a *TON* of money off of microtransactions and loot boxes, not only in their own games but also in any games using Steam payments. Sony and Microsoft get substantially lower cuts on console, and Nintendo was reluctant to even adopt DLC, much less more invasive microtransactions.

 

And none of this is to mention that providing proper support for consoles including security updates, new features, and new developer APIs is not free or even cheap. There's a reason why the support level on the PS4 has been *so* much higher than the PS3.

 

It's lower cost than any competitors by like 2/3rds. It doesn't include crud designed as a hook like the "free monthly games" that most users don't go out of their way to redeem. It's just straight and simple "Give us a bit of money so you can use our services." No manipulative BS, no hidden costs, all described well before the hardware -much less any online title for the hardware- launched. You couldn't get any less anti-consumer.

Once again you justifying corporation being anti consumer i posted a video debunking this wall of BS you typed.

[Drak3]

1 hour ago, Demonking said:

Once again you justifying corporation being anti consumer i posted a video debunking this wall of BS you typed.

Except these aren't anticonsumer practices. If anything, it's the failure of the consumer to actually look into the full extent of what they're buying.

 

Don't like it, don't buy it. Simple.

 

Gaming is not a necessity. Access to the work of others, including the use of their servers, is not a right, it's a privilege, granted to you by those doing said work.

[Demonking]

46 minutes ago, Drak3 said:

Except these aren't anticonsumer practices. If anything, it's the failure of the consumer to actually look into the full extent of what they're buying.

 

Don't like it, don't buy it. Simple.

 

Gaming is not a necessity. Access to the work of others, including the use of their servers, is not a right, it's a privilege, granted to you by those doing said work.

Yeah keep being a corporate slave.

[Drak3]

4 minutes ago, Demonking said:

Yeah keep being a corporate slave.

Learn what being anti consumer actually is. Charging for a service isn't anti consumer.

 

Stop being an entitled brat.

[Sniperfox47]

2 hours ago, Demonking said:

Once again you justifying corporation being anti consumer i posted a video debunking this wall of BS you typed.

You posted a video debunking that CDNs cost an insane amount of money to operate?

 

You posted a video debunking that PC marketplaces and console marketplaces are totally different revenue models?

 

The only video you posted was a 25 minute long PCMR rant about how PCs offer a superior experience by being free (which they're not).

 

Valve supports their service through microtransactions (which costs users money) and by shortchanging developers. You can argue all you want that that's better or worse, but it is in no way "anticonsumer" to have a different revenue model.

 

GOG doesn't operate a CDN on anywhere near the same scale as Valve but they take the same cut of revenue from game sales. 30%. Notice how that's still double what consoles take?

 

[Space Reptile]

we knew that it costs money for a LONG time now , they announced it last year 

[NoOverflow]

5 hours ago, Sniperfox47 said:

You posted a video debunking that CDNs cost an insane amount of money to operate?

 

You posted a video debunking that PC marketplaces and console marketplaces are totally different revenue models?

 

The only video you posted was a 25 minute long PCMR rant about how PCs offer a superior experience by being free (which they're not).

 

Valve supports their service through microtransactions (which costs users money) and by shortchanging developers. You can argue all you want that that's better or worse, but it is in no way "anticonsumer" to have a different revenue model.

 

GOG doesn't operate a CDN on anywhere near the same scale as Valve but they take the same cut of revenue from game sales. 30%. Notice how that's still double what consoles take?

 

Okay CDN cost a bit of money but not that much stop telling bullshit, it's not a video streaming service.

And normaly this cost is include in the game price.

 

5 hours ago, Drak3 said:

Learn what being anti consumer actually is. Charging for a service isn't anti consumer.

 

Stop being an entitled brat.

It is because you're forced to pay to play online you have no alternative

If i want to build my own online server for Switch i can't

If it was just to pay the cost of server they would allow private server (like for a lot of computer games) but it's not, it's about profit.

[Sniperfox47]

3 minutes ago, NoOverflow said:

Okay CDN cost a bit of money but not that much stop telling bullshit, it's not a video streaming service.

And normaly this cost is include in the game price.

Umm what? Yes they absolutely are. Have you ever been to the PSN store or the Nintendo store and seen the gameplay/teaser videos for games in their description? Those don't get handled by magic.

 

Game stores are video streaming service, file download services, and patch hosting services, remote compression servers, and a number of other different things to do their jobs well.

 

These are things that your average console user expects as part of the experience, and they're *not* trivial to impliment.

 

And as I pointed out no it's not for any service other than GOG (who doesn't do streaming compression for downloads, or a number of other things, and who host game downloads on a mix of AWS and GCS to cut costs.)

 

For Valve it's paid for mostly by the insane income they make from microtransactions.

 

For consoles where the platform hosts make substantially less money off every game sale, it's from an over-the-top charge.

 

Out of all of those GOG offers the worst UX by far.

 

And if you really want to talk about anticonsumer practices I'd rank microtransactions way higher than a basic over-the-top fee since they're literally designed to manipulate consumers into spending more money than they realize, and abuse addictive spending habits of their userbase.

 

Abusing public wellfare (i.e. capitalizing on addictive habits) is anticonsumer.

 

Making you pay for a service that you use is not.

[Sniperfox47]

17 minutes ago, NoOverflow said:

It is because you're forced to pay to play online you have no alternative

If i want to build my own online server for Switch i can't

If it was just to pay the cost of server they would allow private server (like for a lot of computer games) but it's not, it's about profit.

Learn what anti-consumer means.

 

Quote

Anti-consumerism is concerned with the private actions of business corporations in pursuit of financial and economic goals at the expense of the public welfare, especially in matters of environmental protection, social stratification, and ethics in the governing of a society. 

"In order to use the companies service I need to pay for it" is not anticonsumer. It's literally the opposite of anticonsumerism, in that it *is* consumerism.

[NoOverflow]

15 minutes ago, Sniperfox47 said:

Umm what? Yes they absolutely are. Have you ever been to the PSN store or the Nintendo store and seen the gameplay/teaser videos for games in their description? Those don't get handled by magic.

 

Game stores are video streaming service, file download services, and patch hosting services, remote compression servers, and a number of other different things to do their jobs well.

 

These are things that your average console user expects as part of the experience, and they're *not* trivial to impliment.

 

And as I pointed out no it's not for any service other than GOG (who doesn't do streaming compression for downloads, or a number of other things, and who host game downloads on a mix of AWS and GCS to cut costs.)

 

For Valve it's paid for mostly by the insane income they make from microtransactions.

 

For consoles where the platform hosts make substantially less money off every game sale, it's from an over-the-top charge.

 

Out of all of those GOG offers the worst UX by far.

 

And if you really want to talk about anticonsumer practices I'd rank microtransactions way higher than a basic over-the-top fee since they're literally designed to manipulate consumers into spending more money than they realize, and abuse addictive spending habits of their userbase.

 

Abusing public wellfare (i.e. capitalizing on addictive habits) is anticonsumer.

 

Making you pay for a service that you use is not.

1/ So you think the major usage of online platform is to watch teaser ? Don't you think the first usage is multiplayer ?

 

2/ Why the cost of teaser which purpose is to sell a game isn't include in the game price ?

 

3/ If what cost a lot of money is teaser/download service and this price can't be include in the game price why the user need to pay for multiplayer and not just to have access to an online catalog ?

 

Another point:

AWS is cheap as hell especially for big corporation

Files aren't compressed on the fly but are stored compressed

Video streaming is easy to implement thank god we have free software like ffmpef which does the hardest part of the job

[NoOverflow]

20 minutes ago, Sniperfox47 said:

Learn what anti-consumer means.

 

"In order to use the companies service I need to pay for it" is not anticonsumer. It's literally the opposite of anticonsumerism, in that it *is* consumerism.

I fixed it for you :

"In order to fully use my hardware i need to pay a lifetime rent to a company"

[Drak3]

2 hours ago, NoOverflow said:

you have no alternative

You have PC and Android.

 

2 hours ago, NoOverflow said:

If i want to build my own online server for Switch i can't

Don't like it, don't buy it.

2 hours ago, NoOverflow said:

If it was just to pay the cost of server they would allow private server (like for a lot of computer games) but it's not, it's about profit.

Private servers are a security issue.

[Thaldor]

7 hours ago, Sniperfox47 said:

You posted a video debunking that CDNs cost an insane amount of money to operate?

 

You posted a video debunking that PC marketplaces and console marketplaces are totally different revenue models?

 

The only video you posted was a 25 minute long PCMR rant about how PCs offer a superior experience by being free (which they're not).

 

Valve supports their service through microtransactions (which costs users money) and by shortchanging developers. You can argue all you want that that's better or worse, but it is in no way "anticonsumer" to have a different revenue model.

 

GOG doesn't operate a CDN on anywhere near the same scale as Valve but they take the same cut of revenue from game sales. 30%. Notice how that's still double what consoles take?

 

On console side there is one pretty huge cap you forget. You need the developer console and that is not something you get for free.

 

Microsoft seems to be the only one that offers 2 free dev consoles for ID@Xbox developers, but if they haven't changed anything from the Xbox 360 that means you will be creating Microsoft exclusive games and you already need to have some portfolio (Xbox 360 dev kit for a startup without exclusivity would have been around 10-20k$ IIRC). If you are not ready to sell your soul to Microsoft, developer console is going to pay you around 500$ (normal Xbox) and then a dependable monthly fee (from hundreds of dollars to thousands).

 

PS4 dev kit has costed 2500$, but there's probably also negotiation extras for bigger developers and price varies greatly what publishing model you are taking (PS exclusive, timed exclusive or multi platform). [not confirmed anyway ranting] Looking at something like Death Stranding which originally was going to be a multi-platform game but turned out to be (at least for now) PS4 exclusive, I would say Sony also takes a note how anticipated your game is and that also might add some extra to the price of the dev kit.

 

Nintendo notes that developing on the Nintendo platforms is free. You just register and download Unity APIs and start developing, but that part is also free on PS4 and Xbox. Because you really cannot optimize the game for the hardware without the dev kit. Little looking and Switch dev kit pricing starts from 450$ (I believe here also is negotiation bonuses, you make a Nintedo exclusive and get the dev kit cheaper or even free, you make a multi-platform release and you pay more).

Quite many bigger developers get free dev kits quite easily, but smaller ones are in some trouble if they are not ready to sell their souls. Then there is the amount of support, the more you move towards the exclusivity the more support and help you get to optimize your game. And then there are the "additional fees" which include insurances (for PR disasders and legal problems, usually around 1-20k$), age ratings (PEGI and so on), good fist rule for indies is around 2k$/market area (US, EU, Asia, AUS+NZ, S.America so on) for localization and regional costs. But from these usually only the insurances are demanded by the platform (Sony, Microsoft or Nintendo) and some regional fees are demanded by the market place (for ID@Xbox US region is included into the participation, does not include the insurances).

 

In other hand Valve doesn't care. They don't ask insurances incase of your mistakes (copyright and others), you don't need dev kits, you can easily drop the regional fees out because age ratings and others are really enforced only on physical products (at least Microsoft wants these done even for digital only games just because reasons and even after all the costs, if you F'ed up and get inside of a copyright hell, you are on your own, that insurance and all are jsut to cover the Microsofts press release about not being any part of your company). SO, yeah that 30% is more than 15%, but there isn't any additional costs (except for Unity or Unreal with their 5-10% cut but that includes every platform and every company after enough profits).

[NoOverflow]

52 minutes ago, Drak3 said:

You have PC and Android.

 

Don't like it, don't buy it.

Private servers are a security issue.

You don't want me to use it, don't sell it to me

Wrong ! I call bullshit here, there a lot of game on steam with private server, no problem at all

[Tech Enthusiast]

Pretty funny how 2 bucks a month for a service bring up so much drama.

Like seriously,... look over this topic and tell me it is not funny. We are comparing companies that are like 100x the size of each other, use different revenue models or don't even belong to the same ecosystem at all.

 

Hell, we even have the "this is anti-consumer because they take money for their work!" - crowd.

 

It is a service. It costs money. They ask for compensation. It is less than 2 bucks a month.

Don't like it, don't use the service. That simple really. Don't make a huge fuss about it.

[Drak3]

9 minutes ago, NoOverflow said:

You don't want me to use it, don't sell it to me

They aren't selling to you. They're selling to anyone that wants what they're selling.

10 minutes ago, NoOverflow said:

 

Wrong ! I call bullshit here, there a lot of game on steam with private server, no problem at all

Private servers are a HUGE security issue on PC. You'll find that there are virus ridden servers for Minecraft, WOW, CSGO, etc. etc.

[JCBiggs]

so do you have to pay to play COD online nowadays?  I havent touched PS3 in 5 years. 

 

[79wjd]

40 minutes ago, Rattenmann said:

Pretty funny how 2 bucks a month for a service bring up so much drama.

Like seriously,... look over this topic and tell me it is not funny. We are comparing companies that are like 100x the size of each other, use different revenue models or don't even belong to the same ecosystem at all.

 

Hell, we even have the "this is anti-consumer because they take money for their work!" - crowd.

 

It is a service. It costs money. They ask for compensation. It is less than 2 bucks a month.

Don't like it, don't use the service. That simple really. Don't make a huge fuss about it.

Everyone is entitled to everything these days. Nothing too surprising here.

30 minutes ago, JCBiggs said:

so do you have to pay to play COD online nowadays?  I havent touched PS3 in 5 years. 

 

On any console (360, PS4, xbone, is COD on the switch?), yes. 

[JCBiggs]

1 minute ago, djdwosk97 said:

Everyone is entitled to everything these days. Nothing too surprising here.

On any console (360, PS4, xbone, is COD on the switch?), yes. 

wow. thats ridiculous.  so 70 bucks for the game and still have to pay to access their servers?  they need to build host capability into the console. I doubt Ill ever buy another COD game now knowing that. 

 

 

[79wjd]

6 minutes ago, JCBiggs said:

wow. thats ridiculous.  so 70 bucks for the game and still have to pay to access their servers?  they need to build host capability into the console. I doubt Ill ever buy another COD game now knowing that. 

 

 

You have to pay to access Sony/Microsofts network, which is expensive to maintain.

 

There is nothing unreasonable about Sony/Microsoft charging to use their online service...

[JCBiggs]

Just now, djdwosk97 said:

You have to pay to access Sony/Microsofts network, which is expensive to maintain.

 

There is nothing unreasonable about Sony/Microsoft charging to use their online service...

its not "that" expensive.  the amount of traffic sent over the network during a game is actually fairly small. 

[The Benjamins]

5 minutes ago, JCBiggs said:

wow. thats ridiculous.  so 70 bucks for the game and still have to pay to access their servers?  they need to build host capability into the console. I doubt Ill ever buy another COD game now knowing that. 

 

 

What people like to forget is that in the beginning of multiplayer it was a peer to peer or peer to private server, which means the game companies or console companies did not manage servers. now plenty of games have managed servers from the developer or console manufacture which cost money to run and maintain.

 

So it comes down to if you want special features like auto matchmaking, rank systems, ect, someone is going to have to pay for it.

[Sniperfox47]

2 minutes ago, JCBiggs said:

its not "that" expensive.  the amount of traffic sent over the network during a game is actually fairly small. 

53GB of data (less than that because it's compressed but you get the point) for the install of each player. Another few GB of data for patches and updates. The cost of developing and maintaining their CDN to scale for those downloads. It adds up faster than you'd think.

[JCBiggs]

1 minute ago, The Benjamins said:

What people like to forget is that in the beginning of multiplayer it was a peer to peer or peer to private server, which means the game companies or console companies did not manage servers. now plenty of games have managed servers from the developer or console manufacture which cost money to run and maintain.

 

So it comes down to if you want special features like auto matchmaking, rank systems, ect, someone is going to have to pay for it.

thats great, but we are talking about companies with over a billion in revenue. they had a $274 million  Net last year.  you telling me they cant afford a few server racks?    

[The Benjamins]

3 minutes ago, JCBiggs said:

thats great, but we are talking about companies with over a billion in revenue. they had a $274 million  Net last year.  you telling me they cant afford a few server racks?    

You know companies are business that have a end goal of making money and to not give out free stuff.

Also it is a lot more then just a few racks.