Nintendo Switch Online membership numbers revealed; over 9.8 million users have signed up
Are you part of that number of people paying for online, cloud saves, and NES titles?
SourceAre you part of that number of people paying for online, cloud saves, and NES titles?
Source
100% agree with you.
Just because Sony and Microsoft do it doesn’t make it okay for everyone to do it too. These 9.8 million blind fanboys are kind of stabbing themselves in the back.
Brawls online was completely free too, so what makes it okay for Nintendo to all the sudden put rates for online play?
The idea of locking essential parts of games behind a pathway should disgust everyone, yet somehow the fanboys are fine with it...
Nintendo says “jump” and they ask how high.
Exactly, good to hear somebody else sees it for what it is. Some fools say “servers cost money y’know” yes they do but not so much that the billion dollar companies can’t afford to run them, if they cost that much to run then the online for DS,3DS,Wii,WiiU & switch (& PS3) wouldn’t of been possible. It’s like the fanboys are getting a piece of the Nintendo pie which they’re not, they’re just spending money on nothing and arguing that it’s a good thing, absolute morons
Got email from Nintendo and Just completed ther online survey and they asked what would you like to see us improve on I said we all want snes n64 and gamecube games - so if they arrive this year you can all thank me
Is it not obvious? All the posts complaining that Nintendo is making good money, and that people are willingly handing over the handsome sum of a whole $20 per year, and badmouthing people for doing it. Do you all have any idea how infantile you sound, trying to assert a position that Nintendo has no right to charge for online play.
More money for Nintendo means more games from Nintendo. They don’t supply games and services out of the goodness of their hearts. It’s a business, and they have as much right to charge for a service as people have to pay for it.
But of course none of that matters to you people, because you think you have the right to play games for nothing, and then to criticise Nintendo for making money. You all just sound so pathetic.
Nobody said Nintendo has no right. People were saying it is charging money for a service that has historically been free, and has no great justification for not being free today (requirements have remained stagnant while costs have dropped exponentially, and even if not then probably should be handled by the devs of the games in question or giving people the option to run their own servers, hell spin up a couple of assured quality ones to rent for people and even better there), for a company of legendary incompetence (and signs of changing here, also still doing p2p servers), and thus you are inviting some greedy bastards to be greedy bastards. Even if it is less than I might spend for lunch in a week (I am actually really cheap and don't have lunch but that is a different matter) it is also the principle of it all. Nintendo does not lack money to bankroll a few games either, and if they did then I am not about to condone charity for them -- make me a nice item I can do something with instead. Even if they were so hard up that they lacked the funds, lacked access to loans, lacked phone numbers to publishers/VCs, had their investors failed them then I would probably go with "so long and thanks for all the fish" before seeing them effectively pull a miniscribe ( https://www.gillware.com/data-recovery-services/hard-drive-repair/the-first-hard-drive-to-brick/ ).
If you think that sounds pathetic then so be it, personally I think being conned out of money by a multi billion dollar corporation because they thought they would try their hand at a common con and make puppy eyes at you to be absolutely shameful.
Just being a business doesn't excuse scummy business practices.
I'm fine with Nintendo making money, but if their means of making money lies in locking off parts of games and forcing fans to pay for it then we got a problem. The price point being $20 bones a year doesn't excuse that, it's still hard earned money nonetheless.
The real infantile people here are these blind fanboys who beg for Nintendo to sap them of their cash.
You not only do that but you also insult others who disagree, huh.
And you call us pathetic...
not sure it'll help, but let me explain a bit of why a company might try to push for stuff as "service" rather than "product" (I'll be generalizing a bit, but close enough):
Generally, you'll have stockholders who want to see consistent profit. products, like games, require a great deal of investment of money, over time, and you never know exactly what you'll get from it. success or failure or break-even. who knows.
Monthly fees are where it's at. consistent revenue, consistent numbers, consistent new costumers. so monthly access fees are all about making stockholders happy, while also allowing for online multiplayer games to be both a product and a service (double dip). sony, microsoft, and nintendo all do it, just to different degrees. the practice also helps justify whatever cost are associated with making online games happen for the company.
Maybe it helps them be more risky with other things, maybe it allows them more freedom to do what they want without stockholders breathing down their neck, or maybe they just like money. who knows. but this is a huge part of why microsoft is pushing for "all games as a monthly service" rather than a product. a new game release becomes about retaining old customers and attracting new ones, not about how well a game will sell. if it works, expect all of them to eventually do it. because shareholders suck.
but 20 bucks a year is fine. as long as the servers work for the games i want, it's fine by me. would prefer not, but that's the world we live in. free games are a nice touch, though a bit limited.
Generally, you'll have stockholders who want to see consistent profit. products, like games, require a great deal of investment of money, over time, and you never know exactly what you'll get from it. success or failure or break-even. who knows.
Monthly fees are where it's at. consistent revenue, consistent numbers, consistent new costumers. so monthly access fees are all about making stockholders happy, while also allowing for online multiplayer games to be both a product and a service (double dip). sony, microsoft, and nintendo all do it, just to different degrees. the practice also helps justify whatever cost are associated with making online games happen for the company.
Maybe it helps them be more risky with other things, maybe it allows them more freedom to do what they want without stockholders breathing down their neck, or maybe they just like money. who knows. but this is a huge part of why microsoft is pushing for "all games as a monthly service" rather than a product. a new game release becomes about retaining old customers and attracting new ones, not about how well a game will sell. if it works, expect all of them to eventually do it. because shareholders suck.
but 20 bucks a year is fine. as long as the servers work for the games i want, it's fine by me. would prefer not, but that's the world we live in. free games are a nice touch, though a bit limited.
Last edited by osaka35,
Except these people who implied it:
Nintendo are not required to justify their decision to charge for a service.
Yes, charging a small amount of money for access to a service with clearly defined perks and no hidden costs is a total con isn't it. How shameful.
As I said above, yes, asking your customers to pay to use your services is such a scummy business practice isn't it. Businesses would all be much better off if they just let their customers use their services for free, right?
Who's forcing you? You have the choice not to use the service. "I'm fine with Pizza Hut making money, but if their means of making money lies in the locking off of bigger pizzas and forcing customers to pay for them, then we got a problem."
Well at least we agree on something.
- Joined
- Apr 29, 2011
- Messages
- 31,284
- Trophies
- 2
- Age
- 38
- Location
- Dr. Wahwee's castle
- XP
- 18,969
- Country
With the possible exception of the first none of those implied no right, and even the first one you would have to be reading it looking for intent where I would say there was none. By similar token being an arsehole is frequently within the law but you are still an arsehole if you are one. They might not have to justify to anybody (except probably shareholders) but they similarly don't have a right to not be criticised for the move.
Con might have been a strong term (I will stand by it though). If it helps you can substitute for rip off. A few token appeasements that are largely non events (you know what works as well as "cloud" saves which cost basically nothing to a company of that size? Copy to SD card, or giving people the option to use their own service, a few token NES games might vary between people but they have been pushing that stuff hard since... in some cases the SNES but the GBA was probably when it got really real, also costs them not a lot maybe other than opportunity cost which I am sure they considered when they looked at Wii-WiiU-3ds and such virtual console sales with respect to time).
Is the issue that they charge or where they charge? If they amortised it over development costs for games, service charges for the shop, gave people the option to run their own servers... like everybody has done for years rather than charging up front it would be far easier to swallow. In all cases such services would be a drop in the bucket and they are only getting cheaper -- bandwidth requirements have largely remained the same (if not dropped with the advent of p2p, which they are using here) while bandwidth costs are through the floor.
While online is no loss to me I can see why some value it. If then it is the only way to play despite there being no great technical, "business" (maybe they could do the "we is family company" nonsense, however... yeah), nor legal argument for doing it then expect some to upset with the move.
So in the end I see people giving their money away to a company that does not need it, and has done vanishingly little to justify it in that instance. If people are OK with that then that is on them, however I still don't have to say it is a good deal.
Fucking hell, get a grip. It's less than £20 a year. You can spend more than that on a takeaway which lasts about 10 minutes in my house. Nintendo is a business out to make as much money as they can. It's how business works. Accept that and pay, or don't. All this complaining about something so trivial just reeks of the sense of entitlement which seems endemic these days.
The sum is not terribly important here but it is the principle of it. Give them an inch and they will take a mile. In this case though they are not even offering much for that but that could probably go to differences in perceived value. They are free to try to make the money in ways they see fit, I am free to call them greedy cunts if I think they have gone too far and encourage others to join me in my views on the subject. It is how this all works. I fail to see how this is entitlement.
- Joined
- Jan 26, 2016
- Messages
- 2,834
- Trophies
- 1
- Age
- 34
- Location
- Your mom's basement.
- Website
- www.gaiaonline.com
- XP
- 3,632
- Country
Do you even read the replies sent to you or are you too busy pretending to shill for Nintendo? I'm one of the millions of people that paid for Nintendo Switch Online and I'm getting buyer's remorse from it. You wanna know why? It's because Nintendo thinks it's okay to use P2P (peer to peer, which relies on YOUR [and the other person you're connecting to] internet and not theirs) when they should be using that money towards dedicated servers, but they do not. They also act like 3 NES games a month is a good deal when the SNES library is 100x better than it. Switch Online was a mistake.
Think Yr forgetting programmers need to be paid what with updates to online games
Then don't renew if you think the offer has deteriorated when your year/month is up. You're coming across a bit hysterical to be honest.
It's the casting of them as "greedy" in the first instance, when all they are doing is earning money by providing a service. That's a pretty distorted sense of entitlement in my opinion.
Um, how do you think the traffic would get from your Switch to some server Nintendo is using? Do you not realise that this would use just as much of "YOUR internet" as a peer-to-peer connection? The same data has to be transmitted either way. The only difference is that the handshaking etc is done on the Switches themselves. It's the same amount of data going through the pipe whether peer-to-peer or client-server-client. If anything Nintendo have made it more efficient, since you don't have to wait around for a server that might be busy or down. Also, if you happen to live a long way from the nearest server, your round trip will be longer than if you're playing against somebody nearby using peer-to-peer. So you can stop freaking out, Nintendo is not stealing "YOUR internet".
They made it clear what the offering was before sign-up. If you didn't bother to read what you would get for the money, then that's your problem. It doesn't make Nintendo greedy just because you changed your mind.
Similar threads
-
- Portal
-
- Portal
-
- Portal
-
BakerMan
The snack that smiles back, Ballsack!
-
@
CameronCataclysm:
Why no blog posts about Nitendont going after Garry's Mod repos that have been up for a decade or 2? -
-
-
@
Xdqwerty:
Is it safe to update a modded ps3?
Can I play online in pirated games? (with ps3hen either enabled or not) -
-
-
-
-
-
@
Xdqwerty:
@salazarcosplay, I used apollo save tool to activate my ps3 offline so i could play a game that wasnt working
-
S @ salazarcosplay:from what I understood. you load up the piratged game. you the clear the syscalls, then you play
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
