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



## WiiCube_2013 (Aug 15, 2015)

This is definitely out of Nintendo's reach as they still have a very primitive online service, however, if they were to upgrade and make it as good as Xbox LIVE/PS Plus would you possibly consider?

. Access to Beta and Multiplayer demos (normal users wouldn't have permission to)
. Ability to play online
. Free monthly games to keep (from whatever system, i.e, NES, SNES, N64, NGC, Wii, GB, GBC, GBA, DS)
. Exclusive deals
. Store your saves on the cloud
. Crossplay/saves
. Remote play

Is it too ambitious to expect Nintendo to ever give a service such as this? Perhaps but it would be pretty cool.


----------



## Romsstar (Aug 15, 2015)

The premise here is if Nintendo were ever to make such a thing that it would be just as good as the competition, which probably wouldn't be the case.
If by some ridiculous miracle they could actually keep up, I guess we'd like that, although Remote Play should be next to impossible to accomplish.


----------



## KingVamp (Aug 15, 2015)

I hope they don't. Not for every game, but we do get some of that stuff without even paying.


----------



## RevPokemon (Aug 15, 2015)

No personally I am against such programs and feel my Money is better spent on physical games but I do think a program like you suggested (except for online play) should exist for people who want something like that.


----------



## Neru (Aug 15, 2015)

That's a nope!


----------



## Hells Malice (Aug 15, 2015)

They would never do that because almost no one would pay for it. Remembering the general target audience for Nintendo games is all it takes to realize that.

They do need to update their online in general though. It still feels like 1994 when I try to play any of their games online.


----------



## RevPokemon (Aug 15, 2015)

Hells Malice said:


> They would never do that because almost no one would pay for it. Remembering the general target audience for Nintendo games is all it takes to realize that.
> 
> They do need to update their online in general though. It still feels like 1994 when I try to play any of their games online.


Well they need to like you said update the system and ui with regards to user experiences.

Adding another system while you can't master your own does not make sense.


----------



## Osha (Aug 15, 2015)

Hells Malice said:


> They would never do that because almost no one would pay for it. Remembering the general target audience for Nintendo games is all it takes to realize that.
> 
> They do need to update their online in general though. It still feels like 1994 when I try to play any of their games online.


There are 4 worthwhile WiiU games with online (Bayonetta 2, Mario Kart 8, Splatoon and Smash Bros), and the only one with poor online is Smash Bros.


----------



## BORTZ (Aug 15, 2015)

A lot of this is completely outside of what Nintendo is poised to do within this and possibly the next generation. So what if we start with the big one. 

-


WiiCube_2013 said:


> . Ability to play online


If this isnt done well, which Nintendo has shown they are ametures at, then no. Very no, the entire deal is off. That's what the original Xbox live was for and thats all it was for. Nintendo steps into the game late, and has to compete with lets of extra stuff. Sony's over there offering to let you have 6 games a month, online play, and access to other online fuctions for 8 bucks a month. Xbox is handing out a couple of heavy hitter games and solid online. Nintendo's can bearly keep me online long enough to complete a match in SSBW. And the worst part. Friend codes. Yarg. Its like they arent even trying. There way more on this front, but its been talked about to death. Bottom line, if this bullet point sucks, Paying for an online service is a no.

But your other points are interesting. 



WiiCube_2013 said:


> . Free monthly games to keep (from whatever system, i.e, NES, SNES, N64, NGC, Wii, GB, GBC, GBA, DS)
> . Exclusive deals
> . Store your saves on the cloud
> . Crossplay/saves
> . Remote play


The big draw for me is and has always been easy access () to my old favorites. SM64 needs a firm beating into the ground every few years, and its not always so easy to dig out my N64 and hook it up, and time and time again, wonder why I havent figured out a better way than playing with my N64 trident controller. Backwards compatabilty might not be a huge deal to many other gamers, but thats the one thing Nintendo has consistantly done right. Wii being able to play GC, WiiU being able to play Wii games, 3DS being able to play DS, DS being able to play GBA... you get the idea. Thats kinda a big deal to me. *_Should sony let me start playing PS3, 2 and 1 stuff on my PS4? Good bye wallet. 
_
Coupled with that, deals would go a LONG way for nintendo. Even like a deal mimicking Sony PS+ games or Xbox games with gold would be huge. a Free WiiU title and a free 3DS title would be great. Even if its like Shovel knight codes for both systems. Cross buys and Cross/remote play would be great too. 

But this all hinges on what? Solid online play.


----------



## KingVamp (Aug 15, 2015)

Really? Bringing up Friendcodes, something that has been on its way out? Even if they had "solid online" (Not as bad as people are saying), I still wouldn't want them to do the service, for the same reason as I said before.


----------



## Deleted User (Aug 15, 2015)

Free virtual console games and exclusive specials sounds nice, but I think I would pass. It just doesn't seem worth the money when I've already got a few good games to play.


----------



## CathyRina (Aug 15, 2015)

Nintendo doesn't have the online infrastructure that is worth paying money for.
Nintendo doesn't have the 3rd party support needed to sustain a games with gold service for a long time.
And Cross Play/Saves & Remote play are features even Sony and MS aren't asking money for.
Ultimately this would be a horrible deal.


----------



## WiiCube_2013 (Aug 15, 2015)

XrosBlader821 said:


> Nintendo doesn't have the online infrastructure that is worth paying money for.
> Nintendo doesn't have the 3rd party support needed to sustain a games with gold service for a long time.
> And Cross Play/Saves & Remote play are features even Sony and MS aren't asking money for.
> Ultimately this would be a horrible deal.


Having all these features would certainly make it more appealing for some but until N makes a solid online service it's a far fetched idea but could happen someday.


----------



## TecXero (Aug 15, 2015)

WiiCube_2013 said:


> . Access to Beta and Multiplayer demos (normal users wouldn't have permission to)
> . Ability to play online
> . Free monthly games to keep (from whatever system, i.e, NES, SNES, N64, NGC, Wii, GB, GBC, GBA, DS)
> . Exclusive deals
> ...


. Betas and online multiplayer games don't interest me. I'd rather wait for a finished product, unless they're paying me to beta test.
. I'm not interested in playing games online.
. Chances are I'll already own the games that interest me.
. Maybe, depending on what kind of deals or how much of a discount.
. I can manage my own saves, have for years and I generally don't trust storing information on a computer I can't control.
. I generally don't buy a game for multiple platforms.
. Most games I generally go for are handheld games, so remote play isn't really needed.
I wouldn't mind the exclusive deals if it was cheap enough, and depending on the deals. I would pay a couple of dollars a month maybe. I do have a Xbox 360 (poor thing hasn't been dusted off in a long time) and I did have a PS3. I never payed for either of their services. As long as I can download updates, dlc, and digital games (only if they're exclusively digital), I'm fine.


----------



## laudern (Aug 15, 2015)

Nintendo is having a hard enough time getting people to pay for the actual console, let alone the console and a service with a fee. 

Nintendo needs to make their virtual console a subscription. Get every single vc game for $3 or something a month.


----------



## RevPokemon (Aug 15, 2015)

laudern said:


> Nintendo is having a hard enough time getting people to pay for the actual console, let alone the console and a service with a fee.
> 
> Nintendo needs to make their virtual console a subscription. Get every single vc game for $3 or something a month.


But who would do that when you can emu for free and get more selection?


----------



## CitizenSnips (Aug 15, 2015)

I probably would if I had to because I need online for pokemon, also free monthly games would be nice


----------



## CathyRina (Aug 15, 2015)

RevPokemon said:


> But who would do that when you can emu for free and get more selection?


Well you would have access to these games legally. Some people do prefer it having that way.


----------



## RevPokemon (Aug 15, 2015)

XrosBlader821 said:


> Well you would have access to these games legally. Some people do prefer it having that way.


I guess but most people j know either emu or buy physical copies. I don't know many who buy digital retro games.


----------



## laudern (Aug 15, 2015)

RevPokemon said:


> But who would do that when you can emu for free and get more selection?



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


----------



## RustInPeace (Aug 15, 2015)

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 (Aug 15, 2015)

laudern said:


> 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 (Aug 16, 2015)

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


----------



## Foxi4 (Aug 16, 2015)

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 (Aug 16, 2015)

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 (Aug 16, 2015)

Foxi4 said:


> 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 (Aug 16, 2015)

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 (Aug 16, 2015)

RevPokemon said:


> 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 (Aug 16, 2015)

Jwiz33 said:


> 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 ---------------------------



Foxi4 said:


> 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 (Aug 16, 2015)

RevPokemon said:


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


Well then, sure.


----------



## The Real Jdbye (Aug 16, 2015)

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 (Aug 16, 2015)

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.



RevPokemon said:


> 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 (Aug 16, 2015)

FAST6191 said:


> 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.
> 
> 
> ...


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 (Aug 16, 2015)

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 (Aug 16, 2015)

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


----------



## Foxi4 (Aug 16, 2015)

Monado_III said:


> 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 (Aug 16, 2015)

Foxi4 said:


> 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 (Aug 16, 2015)

RevPokemon said:


> 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 (Aug 16, 2015)

Foxi4 said:


> 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 (Aug 16, 2015)

RevPokemon said:


> 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.


----------



## Monado_III (Aug 16, 2015)

Foxi4 said:


> 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.


But all it's doing is connecting to a server, we're already paying for internet so I see no reason why it should cost money to connect to a server owned by a multi-million dollar company. I'm not paying to connect to gbatemp.net or wikipedia.com. Sure there are ads on most websites, but that's their only source of revenue, unlike MS/other game company which already got $500 (or $70 in the case of a game) from my *theoretical* purchase of an XBox/PS/game, (never mind the fact that I'm willing to bet that some companies pay MS/Sony to have their games featured on the front of the store). If I buy a Mac, I don't need to pay Apple to access the mac store. 

I'm not trying to say that goods==services but in this case the service should come with the good like it has previously.


----------



## Foxi4 (Aug 16, 2015)

Monado_III said:


> But all it's doing is connecting to a server, we're already paying for internet so I see no reason why it should cost money to connect to a server owned by a multi-million dollar company. I'm not paying to connect to gbatemp.net or wikipedia.com. Sure there are ads on most websites, but that's their only source of revenue, unlike MS/other game company which already got $500 (or $70 in the case of a game) from my *theoretical* purchase of an XBox/PS/game, (never mind the fact that I'm willing to bet that some companies pay MS/Sony to have their games featured on the front of the store). If I buy a Mac, I don't need to pay Apple to access the mac store.
> 
> I'm not trying to say that goods==services but in this case the service should come with the good like it has previously.


Previously games mostly relied on TCP/IP connections between individual peers, not a centralized network, and without ads there is no source of revenue here, just a massive expense, hence the subscription fees.


----------



## RevPokemon (Aug 16, 2015)

Foxi4 said:


> 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.


Me to but the question is can ad revenue support the cost of servers plus make a decent profit? I'm not sure personally but I can say it would be a cool concept but seemingly how people pay for it willingly I'm not sure it would be worth it


----------



## Foxi4 (Aug 16, 2015)

RevPokemon said:


> Me to but the question is can ad revenue support the cost of servers plus make a decent profit? I'm not sure personally but I can say it would be a cool concept but seemingly how people pay for it willingly I'm not sure it would be worth it


Here I bring forward the example of YouTube. While it doesn't make any money for _Google themselves_, it does create enough revenue for content creators' paychecks. When it comes to a gaming network, there is no content creation involved - the content is already there, the ads would merely support your use of the network. I think it's a pretty sound setup in theory, it's the implementation that would be difficult - how do you create ad space when gaming? I suppose you could be shown ads in lobbies and in the console's OS, I suppose, similarly to how Amazon serves ads on their lower-end Kindles. Alternatively some games implemented real-time ads on in-game billboards, I believe one of the recent Rainbow Six games had that kind of a system.


----------



## RevPokemon (Aug 16, 2015)

Foxi4 said:


> Here I bring forward the example of YouTube. While it doesn't make any money for _Google themselves_, it does create enough revenue for content creators. When it comes to a gaming network, there is no content creation involved - the content is already there, the ads would merely support your use of the network. I think it's a pretty sound setup, it's the implementation that would be difficult - how do you create the ad space? I suppose you could be shown ads in lobbies and in the console's OS, I suppose, similarly to how Amazon serves ads on their lower-end Kindles.


I assume that is a good setup for the companies but at the same time I would have to wonder who would fund the ads? I'm guessing the best way would be for them to target the market that plays said game and that would be smart.

I do think it probably isn't enough to pay for the servers and a good profit for the people at Microsoft and PSN but it would be a great way to make extra money but I really do like the idea of a lite service.


----------



## Foxi4 (Aug 16, 2015)

RevPokemon said:


> I assume that is a good setup for the companies but at the same time I would have to wonder who would fund the ads? I'm guessing the best way would be for them to target the market that plays said game and that would be smart.
> 
> I do think it probably isn't enough to pay for the servers and a good profit for the people at Microsoft and PSN but it would be a great way to make extra money but I really do like the idea of a lite service.


Game developers pay for ads on TV, why wouldn't they pay for ads on a console, ads that are shown directly to their target audience - gamers? It's as targeted as it gets, and the more precise you are with advertising, the more you can demand for it. I can see devs wanting to chip in if that kind of a service was available.


----------



## RevPokemon (Aug 16, 2015)

Foxi4 said:


> Game developers pay for ads on TV, why wouldn't they pay for ads on a console, ads that are shown directly to their target audience - gamers? It's as targeted as it gets, and the more precise you are with advertising, the more you can demand for it. I can see devs wanting to chip in if that kind of a service was available.


Yeah it would be a great idea and it could be even better for FTP games on consoles and it could work very well as long as it is not overly invasive to the point where it hurts gameplay.
I mean it's a proven concept on mobile so it should work fine


----------



## Monado_III (Aug 16, 2015)

Foxi4 said:


> Here I bring forward the example of YouTube. While it doesn't make any money for _Google themselves_, it does create enough revenue for content creators' paychecks. When it comes to a gaming network, there is no content creation involved - the content is already there, the ads would merely support your use of the network. I think it's a pretty sound setup in theory, it's the implementation that would be difficult - how do you create ad space when gaming? I suppose you could be shown ads in lobbies and in the console's OS, I suppose, similarly to how Amazon serves ads on their lower-end Kindles. Alternatively some games implemented real-time ads on in-game billboards, I believe one of the recent Rainbow Six games had that kind of a system.


I wouldn't mind if ads were in lobbies and in games (like billboards), especially since it can add a sort of realism in games like GTA. But I would object to it being in the OS home screen. But If it meant online gaming would be free then I would feel like I wasn't being forced into buying the XBlive/PS+ type service and I would be paying just for the bonuses.


----------



## Foxi4 (Aug 16, 2015)

Monado_III said:


> I wouldn't mind if ads were in lobbies and in games (like billboards), especially since it can add a sort of realism in games like GTA. But I would object to it being in the OS home screen. But If it meant online gaming would be free then I would feel like I wasn't being forced into buying the XBlive/PS+ type service and I would be paying just for the bonuses.


I do like the realism argument - games that are set in more-or-less contemporary times could somewhat benefit from this as long as it wasn't shoved in the player's face all the time. It's not like we don't see this kind of thing in other media - it's all over movies these days and hardly anyone bats an eye unless it's done in a completely outrageous fashion.


----------



## RevPokemon (Aug 16, 2015)

Foxi4 said:


> I do like the realism argument - games that are set in more-or-less contemporary times could somewhat benefit from this as long as it wasn't shoved in the player's face all the time. It's not like we don't see this kind of thing in other media - it's all over movies these days and hardly anyone bats an eye unless it's done in a completely outrageous fashion.


Absolutely plus the brand could make the ad to where it matches the setting which would be neat


----------



## Monado_III (Aug 16, 2015)

RevPokemon said:


> Absolutely plus the brand could make the ad to where it matches the setting which would be neat


and there could be in game branded items (ie for GTA you could buy actual Doritos at a vending machine).


----------



## RevPokemon (Aug 16, 2015)

Monado_III said:


> and there could be in game branded items (ie for GTA you could buy actual Doritos at a vending machine).


Yep that could be cool too as long as it isn't over enforced


----------



## Monado_III (Aug 16, 2015)

RevPokemon said:


> Yep that could be cool too as long as it isn't over enforced


inb4 Doritos and Monster energy drinks are the only thing you can buy.


----------



## KingVamp (Aug 16, 2015)

Reminds me of that free Mario Kart 8 Dlc with the "realistic" Mario ads.


----------



## DrOctapu (Aug 16, 2015)

Jesus, no. Nintendo's online is already terrible, why would I want to pay for it? Hell, one of the biggest reasons I haven't bothered with either of the other two current gen consoles out is because of the complete bullshit that is paying for online. You know what's better than getting small discounts and free games in exchange for a monthly fee? Spending your money on shit you actually want.


----------



## RevPokemon (Aug 16, 2015)

KingVamp said:


> Reminds me of that free Mario Kart 8 Dlc with the "realistic" Mario ads.


I have to say the Mercedes thing was pretty cool tho


----------



## NeoSupaMario (Aug 16, 2015)

Nah, I don't even get Xbox Live or PSN because:
1) I already bought the expensive consoles and games
2) Said purchases wipe out money quickly
3) no money
4) no profit


----------



## FAST6191 (Aug 16, 2015)

RevPokemon said:


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



Mainly because I am an antisocial bastard that does not like online games and if I really cared then I would have had a shiny PC there and ready to go for free. Not to mention I tend to sport hacked devices and the "if you hack then you lose online" thing kind of stuck for me from earlier times.


----------



## grossaffe (Aug 16, 2015)

Doubtful.  I am not a fan of the whole Games As A Service concept.


----------



## Deleted User (Aug 16, 2015)

It'd just be another reason not to get the latest Nintendo console honestly. None of the deals or discounts that would come with it would be worth anything, it'd be like "%30 off all Megaman titles!" for games that came out 20 years ago that I've already won on every console under the sun. I barely play my Wii U online as it is so making me pay is just going to be a hassle that I won't bother with. And I have no faith in paying for save storage in the cloud as what if I can't afford to purchase a months worth of Nintendo's service but I still want to play my vidya, I'd be screwed over. The free monthy games is the only nice part you wrote out but again the few games I would want I'd have already bought so the rest would just be a hassle that I could honestly pirate for a better experience. 

But then again I don't like monthly subscription services in general so I'm biased. I'm glad Nintendo don't do any shitty monthly services for features that should be a given, it's all they've really got left at this point (apart from "muh ip's").


----------



## NeroAngelo (Aug 16, 2015)

sadly almost NONE of the listed items are things Nintendo would do ... Ninty are too ... "traditional" and stuck in a rut when it comes to Online related stuff.


----------



## Hungry Friend (Aug 16, 2015)

No.


----------



## KevInChester (Aug 16, 2015)

I wouldn't trust them to give parity across regions - you'd end up with one region being spoilt, and another being given trash.  I'd prefer to pay a small amount to make my 3DS region free.


----------

