If Nintendo decided to make their own "Xbox LIVE/PS Plus" service would you pay for it?

[RustInPeace]

I don't think I would. Is Virtual Console deep with content? This sounds like VC + other stuff, and only the VC interests me. Even if VC's rich with content, I would rather play retro games on retro consoles.

 

[RevPokemon]

Well that's like saying "who would pay $xx for any game when you can pirate it for free.

Well older games (like nes to n64) are alot easier to emu compared to modern games. I do think it would be good for gcn and wii games since to emu you need a good PC or vwii type stuff which is much more of a hassle.

 

[KingVamp]

Even if they did do such a service, it wouldn't be anywhere near that cheap. Ridiculous.

 

[Foxi4]

I would pay for it provided the level of service would be comparable or superior to the competition's. Unfortunately I know that such a prospect is unlikely since Nintendo runs their network on (mostly) rented servers as far as I know, which is why DS' and a considerable section of Wii's online functionality was shut down along with GameSpy, the company that owned the servers the software ran on. As rich as they are, I don't think they're willing to spend on their online infrastructure since they don't prioritize Internet-related functionality, they live in their own little bubble.

 

[Selim873]

No. An online service doesn't need to cost money to be successful, assuming it would be. Steam and PS3 are examples of that. I can easily guess that PS4 is paid to help support extras such as PSNow and free monthly games.

 

[RevPokemon]

I would pay for it provided the level of service would be comparable or superior to the competition's. Unfortunately I know that such a prospect is unlikely since Nintendo runs their network on (mostly) rented servers as far as I know, which is why DS' and a considerable section of Wii's online functionality was shut down along with GameSpy, the company that owned the servers the software ran on. As rich as they are, I don't think they're willing to spend on their online infrastructure since they don't prioritize Internet-related functionality, they live in their own little bubble.

What is wrong with rented servers as long as they are high grade with decent bandwidth? Does owning the same quality servers add any performance advantages over rented dedicated premium servers that many companies use? Just wondering.

 

[Jwiz33]

I think a free old 3DS/Wii U game every month for a small fee would be nice, but paying for online is a no. Nintendo games have bad online anyway.

 

[Foxi4]

What is wrong with rented servers as long as they are high grade with decent bandwidth? Does owning the same quality servers add any performance advantages over rented dedicated premium servers that many companies use? Just wondering.

What you're essentially asking is "what's the advantage of owning a kitchen if you can go to McDonald's".

Let's take PSNow as an example - Sony spent a stupid amount of money buying Gaikai, investing in their technology and essentially assembling "Ultra-PS3's" in order to stream PS3 games directly to your door. You can't expect that kind of customizability from bog-standard servers that are made to serve websites, this is custom-made hardware created for one very specific purpose.

Another problem is reliability - your network is only as reliable as quick technicians, preferably your technicians who are familiar with the software the machines are supposed to run, can get on-site and fix issues. The more nodes there are between you and your server farm the more kerfuffle you have to deal with, especially if the network you're creating has to intersect, say, another network on another continent. You might end up in a situation where you're renting servers from several different companies operating in different countries on different continents dealing in different currency and that's a clusterfuck.

Then there's the matter of security - you can create software that's more secure than Fort Knox, but if you're not there with the server, you can't possibly guarantee that an intern with a USB stick won't leak your sh*t, and that has happened before, so we know it's a real risk. Unless it's your employees taking care of the hardware, you have no guarantees that you're safe from physical attacks on the network.

All in all, owning your own servers is infinitely better for any kind of complex functionality. It's also much more expensive, at least initially, since you have to invest in the hardware, the space to store it, a crap-a-ton of infrastructure like fiber etc., research the technology, pay the technicians etc. Nintendo prefers the easy way out in this regard, they just use rented servers which works well enough, but doesn't provide specific functionality like the competition's servers do.

 

[RevPokemon]

I think a free old 3DS/Wii U game every month for a small fee would be nice, but paying for online is a no. Nintendo games have bad online anyway.

But when WiiCube made this theoretical question it is assuming Nintendo had good online service.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------

What you're essentially asking is "what's the advantage of owning a kitchen if you can go to McDonald's". Let's take PSNow as an example - Sony spent a stupid amount of money buying Gaikai, investing in their technology and essentially assembling "Ultra-PS3's" in order to stream PS3 games directly to your door. You can't expect that kind of customizability from bog-standard servers that are made to serve websites, this is custom-made hardware created for one very specific reason. Another problem is reliability - your network is only as reliable as quick technicians, preferably your technicians who are familiar with the software the machines are supposed to run, can get on-site and fix issues. Then there's the matter of security - you can create software that's more secure than Fort Knox, but if you're not there with the server, you can't possibly guarantee that an intern with a USB stick won't leak your sh*t, and that has happened before, so we know it's a real risk. The more nodes there are between you and your server farm the more kerfuffle you have to deal with, especially if the network you're creating has to intersect, say, another network on another continent. You might end up in a situation where you're renting servers from several different companies operating in different countries on different continents dealing in different currency and that's a clusterfuck. Owning your own servers is infinitely better for any kind of complex functionality.

I get what you were saying but I read your post wrong as I read it assuming that you were saying the servers themselves were inferior (as in specs) but I get what your saying and your right as it would be best if they owned thier own servers.

 

[Jwiz33]

But when WiiCube made this theoretical question it is assuming Nintendo had good online service.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------


I get what you were saying but I read your post wrong as I read it assuming that you were saying the servers themselves were inferior (as in specs) but I get what your saying and your right as it would be best if they owned thier own servers.

Well then, sure.

 

[The Real Jdbye]

I would pay for that if it meant a flawless online experience and I got some free monthly games to go with it too.

 

[FAST6191]

I pay for no online service beyond usenet, and I guess my toy web hosting if that counts but both of those are services I properly gain from payin for. I have never paid for online games, season passes or any kind pay to win/pay to enhance or even pay for DLC to improve online experiences (if it so happens as a result of my single player DLC then so be it) in my life and will try very hard to keep it that way.
As others have mentioned Nintendo would not be able to get the third parties in to support it and imagining them doing so is pretty laughable in this day and age.


. Access to Beta and Multiplayer demos (normal users wouldn't have permission to)
You pay me to beta test and you must have offered a serious amount as I really do not like beta testing.

. Ability to play online
Already covered.

. Free monthly games to keep (from whatever system, i.e, NES, SNES, N64, NGC, Wii, GB, GBC, GBA, DS)
I am old. I probably still have the game in the original form or one of the 900 emulated forms (official and otherwise) out there.

. Exclusive deals
Pay for my coupons? No thanks.

. Store your saves on the cloud
I have a USB drive and FTP/email, also a working knowledge of this sort of thing so while it is a service I can set up my own if I cared.

. Crossplay/saves
To a slightly lesser extent see above.

. Remote play
Same again.

What is wrong with rented servers as long as they are high grade with decent bandwidth? Does owning the same quality servers add any performance advantages over rented dedicated premium servers that many companies use? Just wondering.

Pragmatically, not really. However I phrase I kind of like is if if floats, fucks, or flies, rent it by the hour if it is a service you are selling (and even at free Nintendo are selling a service) then build it yourself. There are exceptions but they are not typically for multinational corporations with country sized budgets and dealing in tech. By all means rent cdns, outsource some things if regulations are getting in your way.... however you at least keep the core known and available to you such that you can rebuild trivially (or as trivially as globe spanning networks ever get) when one of those components gets taken out.

 

[RevPokemon]

I pay for no online service beyond usenet, and I guess my toy web hosting if that counts but both of those are services I properly gain from payin for. I have never paid for online games, season passes or any kind pay to win/pay to enhance or even pay for DLC to improve online experiences (if it so happens as a result of my single player DLC then so be it) in my life and will try very hard to keep it that way.
As others have mentioned Nintendo would not be able to get the third parties in to support it and imagining them doing so is pretty laughable in this day and age.


. Access to Beta and Multiplayer demos (normal users wouldn't have permission to)
You pay me to beta test and you must have offered a serious amount as I really do not like beta testing.

. Ability to play online
Already covered.

. Free monthly games to keep (from whatever system, i.e, NES, SNES, N64, NGC, Wii, GB, GBC, GBA, DS)
I am old. I probably still have the game in the original form or one of the 900 emulated forms (official and otherwise) out there.

. Exclusive deals
Pay for my coupons? No thanks.

. Store your saves on the cloud
I have a USB drive and FTP/email, also a working knowledge of this sort of thing so while it is a service I can set up my own if I cared.

. Crossplay/saves
To a slightly lesser extent see above.

. Remote play
Same again.


Pragmatically, not really. However I phrase I kind of like is if if floats, fucks, or flies, rent it by the hour if it is a service you are selling (and even at free Nintendo are selling a service) then build it yourself. There are exceptions but they are not typically for multinational corporations with country sized budgets and dealing in tech. By all means rent cdns, outsource some things if regulations are getting in your way.... however you at least keep the core known and available to you such that you can rebuild trivially (or as trivially as globe spanning networks ever get) when one of those components gets taken out.

Yep I get it but like I said before I thought he was saying that a owned server is in specs better even if they are the same model of server PC.

But you have never payed for psn or xbla? If you haven't why not?

 

[Monado_III]

I'd buy/subscribe to it only if it wasn't required for basic online play and the other stuff was just what you were actually paying for, I will (hopefully) never buy a console that forces me to pay just to play my games online when I already paid $75 for them (in Canada).

 

[chemistryfreak]

I might, depending on the pricing and quality of the service.

 

[Foxi4]

I'd buy/subscribe to it only if it wasn't required for basic online play and the other stuff was just what you were actually paying for, I will (hopefully) never buy a console that forces me to pay just to play my games online when I already paid $75 for them (in Canada).

Goods =/= Services. On the same token I could argue that I shouldn't pay for Internet access if I already paid for my PC. Then again, games aren't even goods, they're merely licensed property.

 

[RevPokemon]

Goods =/= Services. On the same token I could argue that I shouldn't pay for Internet access if I already paid for my PC.

Absolutely or TV.
Only thing I think of that is like that is radio and it makes add money to cover the cost since it basically just stations sending out signals more or less

 

[Foxi4]

Absolutely or TV. Only thing I think of that is like that is radio and it makes add money to cover the cost since it basically just stations sending out signals more or less

In most countries you do pay for radio, national "waves" are paid for via taxes and private stations pay fees off with advertising. It's really exactly the same as TV.

 

[RevPokemon]

In most countries you do pay for radio, national "waves" are paid for via taxes and private stations pay fees off with advertising. It's really exactly the same as TV.

Ohh yes I know with NPR but I think that is not radio for tax reasons but is a educational/public information type but your right.
Other than non profit (mainly religious stations) which rely on donations then its all paid by adds and are normally owned by big companies like Viacom and what not

 

[Foxi4]

Ohh yes I know with NPR but I think that is not radio for tax reasons but is a educational/public information type but your right. Other than non profit (mainly religious stations) which rely on donations then its all paid by adds and are normally owned by big companies like Viacom and what not

I would be quite interested in seeing a PSN Lite or an XBL Lite powered exclusively by ads and providing baseline functionality, meaning multiplayer. It's an interesting concept that Microsoft dabbled with in the past, but I don't think they did it "right". I feel it would be an interesting alternative to paying subscription fees.