Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Ozyton]

So I know we've been over the whole pay-to-multiplayer thing but now we have an idea of how much it would cost. Apparently it'll be somewhere between 2 or 3 thousand Yen, which is about $17.50 - $26.50 annually (source). So, $1.45-$2.20 monthly assuming that they keep a consistent exchange rate.

This is much better than what I was anticipating, but the fact that it exists at all still irks me.

[Neonivek]

Yes but they will likely up the price for the western market to conform to our standards of 5 bucks.

Meaning it will cost about 300 bucks to keep multiplayer going.

[frostshotgg]

I don't even know how you went from about $2 a month from Ozy's numbers to "Oh they're gonna gouge the price" $5 a month, and then how you went from there to 300$. That's 5 years (60 months) at 5$ a month.

[Ozyton]

I think that's the point. If we're to assume a "console generation" is about 5 years long, then if you were to subscribe for that length of time you'll get 300 dollars in total. That is assuming that they... "round up" from the supposed 2 dollars to 5 dollars (which I wouldn't be too surprised if they did).

[Ghills]

...Its draw is not as strong as the draw of exclusive games, but for people who want more than just a stationary gaming system, whether or not they have one already, the Switch offers something promising. Vita is a contender here, as are regular tablets and Nintendo's own handhelds, but the Switch is more than any one of those, and for a comparable price. ...

But is it more than other mobile options? That's what I keep coming back to.

I can run KOTOR and the IE games on my Android tablet, along with classic games through Dosbox, AGS and ScummVM. It has King of Dragon Pass, World of Goo, and a whole lot of excellent mobile games. I can also send email, call people over VOIP, browse the internet, and watch Netflix (which Nintendo has specifically denied on the Switch!), do online shopping, etc.  My 2014 tablet does more by every measure except 'how many Nintendo games does it play', and, well, I already have a 3DS with lots of Nintendo games. 

It's really disappointing.  I was really looking forward to the Switch and it feels like Nintendo just keeps supplying reasons for me not to get it.  It's like they don't fully understand how people use either mobile devices or consoles and have made a middle-of-the-road device that doesn't stack up against the competition in either market.  Maybe the 'unique' label will really work for them, but it didn't for the Wii U.

[Ghills]

So I know we've been over the whole pay-to-multiplayer thing but now we have an idea of how much it would cost. Apparently it'll be somewhere between 2 or 3 thousand Yen, which is about $17.50 - $26.50 annually (source). So, $1.45-$2.20 monthly assuming that they keep a consistent exchange rate.

This is much better than what I was anticipating, but the fact that it exists at all still irks me.

That is better than expected, though charging for multiplayer is still terrible.

[Krevsin]

The rest of that subscription is also still a joke. Oh boy, an entire NES/SNES game for me to keep for a month whereupon it shall be torn from my game collection away because Nintendo giveth and Nintendo taketh away.

[Egan_BW]

Yeah, it really should be a permanent addition to your library. WTF nintendo.

[Neonivek]

Yeah, it really should be a permanent addition to your library. WTF nintendo.

Because this is Nintendo... and they treat their classics worse then any other company out there when it comes to putting it fairly in the hands of their costumers.

They are the ones who included DEMOS, really bad ones, in a Super Smash Bros game...

They are the ones who included a full priced version of Super Mario Allstars that was basically a straight up emulation... without any changes... When previous versions of it did.

It isn't a gift for buying the online... It exists to advertise the Nintendo store.

The "bonus" for paying for the 300 dollar multiplayer (or 150 dollar if they don't mark it up) is an advertisement.

----

Nintendo has been up their own butt for a while now... and with the Switch they NEED to up their game.

I think Nintendo thinks they are Disney.

[Neonivek]

I see you're still doing your extrapolate-the-cost-over-5-years-for-some-reason thing. Anyway, I will agree that this is just what Nintendo does.

I mean, hell, go find a copy of Luigi's Mansion. They actually include a trailer for Pikmin in the game itself.

You're just disagreeing with me on principle anyway (Actually... Yeah you kind of are...)

Also yes of course I would, because the entire reason for many of these companies to spread it out this way is to make the consumer think it is actually less money then it actually is.

If you want a easier example look no further than the Shopping Channel which will often not tell you how much an item costs... but rather how much a single payment is.

[Neonivek]

Not disagreeing on principle,

Ohh so you are doing it for no reason. Ok then, nice to know.

[Neonivek]

I mean, I think you're blowing it way out of proportion. That's not "no reason". Which is why you extrapolate over 5 years- you want to make the number as big as possible.

You said you aren't doing it "On Principle". So that means you have no reason to disagree with me, and otherwise you would be.

Unless you have some different definition of "Principle" that implies something drastically different that would be bad if it applied to you... But that would be crazy

And No, not trying to make the number as big as possible I am showing you EXACTLY how big the number actually is.

It's like those infomercials with the "5 payments of $29.99", except you're doing the opposite.

If you own a switch and want to play multiplayer you are paying those charges. I am adding that cost.

[Neonivek]

I see we're doing this thing where you take a phrase I use and bastardizing it to make a point that no one cares about again.

No of course not. That is 100% not what is happening.

To clarify: I don't disagree with the principle. I disagree with the scope.

The scope is part of the principle.

[Neonivek]

Except the scope isn't, since you're disregarding it entirely when you make your argument. At least until you can make big numbers out of it so that it sounds scary, and then say "it isn't about the actual cost" the next minute.

So is it a matter of how much they are charging, or that they are charging in general, for multiplayer?

You completely reworded what I said in a completely inaccurate way. Can you backtrack a bit?

My principle is that if you add up the total lifetime of multiplayer on the Switch (given a typical 5 year lifestyle) at the likely cost it would be 300 dollars or 150 if they don't inflate it. Every part of this is my principle.

[Neonivek]

Are you disagreeing with paying for multiplayer in general, or are you disagreeing with the specific amount that they're asking for?

Neither.

Nor do I agree... and no, there isn't a contradiction there... and not because "I have no opinion" either...

Because one of two things can happen. Nintendo can eliminate their price (since they are including that price... anyway being Nintendo... and some games will use their own servers and yet still require that price)

OR Nintendo can meet its price with quality.

And Nintendo, if last generation is any indication, has had the worst online service of them all... And there is every indication to believe that they are fervent in continuing this paltry service AND will still charge full price for what would normally be budget titles and thus the internet fee is being paid for... twice.

Though typically what this would mean is that the internet fee is actually a way to lower the price of the switch to hopefully make it up on sales... But they are HEAVILY marketing it as a family console who, in my mind, would be less inclined to pony up the money.

So I disagree with this on Principle... that principle being that the money I pay should be equal or less than the value.

Not "Multiplayer should be free" as you liked to hoist me with or this "150 dollars is too much for anything". Which is why I accused you of defining "On principle" as "Irrational", because you only seemed to use it that way. Mostly because if my views perfectly aligned with yours, you wouldn't say the same thing... because a "perfectly rational decision" usually doesn't get the "On Principle" moniker, even though that is still "On Principle".