SwSh Shame! *rings bell*

[godiego]

That shouldn’t be locked behind a paywall.

i mean, it's always been locked behind a paywall.

 

[PkmnTrainerV]

i mean, it's always been locked behind a paywall.

Since when pre-LGPE was trading locked behind a paywall?

I hope it’s nothing ridiculous like the cost of the game or the cost of an Internet connection...

 

[godiego]

Since when pre-LGPE was trading locked behind a paywall?
I hope it’s nothing ridiculous like the cost of the game or the cost of an Internet connection...

all the pre-DS (except for FRLG, i guess? i don't remember how the adapter worked) games required a link cable to trade-- assuming this is with a friend, elsewise you need two systems and two games and the cable. i'd brush it off and say that it's cheap so no biggie, but then again a $20/year sub that is dirt cheap monthly is causing quite the stir so hm. all of the games from DS onwards require an internet connection ($$) unless you're using local wireless or bumming off of public wifi (i honestly don't know how that works on the modern Nintendo stuff, but i know it wouldn't work for the earlier systems).

 

[Poneto]

all the pre-DS (except for FRLG, i guess? i don't remember how the adapter worked) games required a link cable to trade-- assuming this is with a friend, elsewise you need two systems and two games and the cable. i'd brush it off and say that it's cheap so no biggie, but then again a $20/year sub that is dirt cheap monthly is causing quite the stir so hm. all of the games from DS onwards require an internet connection ($$) unless you're using local wireless or bumming off of public wifi (i honestly don't know how that works on the modern Nintendo stuff, but i know it wouldn't work for the earlier systems).

The fact that they were able to stop doing that tho, and stopped for so long, shows what a money-grabbing tactic it really was, and still is.

That said, the game link cable at least was a one off payment, unlike the online service, which is ongoing.

 

[godiego]

The fact that they were able to stop doing that tho, and stopped for so long, shows what a money-grabbing tactic it really was, and still is.

That said, the game link cable at least was a one off payment, unlike the online service, which is ongoing.

not really sure charging $20/year for a service really constitutes money-grabbing, but go off. money-grabbing is charging the industry standard rate of $50 and still delivering the fairly meh service that NSO is.

the reality is is that with the previous iterations of Nintendo's wireless stuff there was an implicit agreement: yeah the service is free, but it's also pretty trash. and reality is is that Nintendo was likely running this service at a loss simply because the investment of improving service wasn't worth it. welcome to life and money 101: there are no free lunches; the cost is there somewhere. with everything being increasingly online all the time, you can't just run an internet service for free.

with respects to completing the pokedex, the NSO can be a one-time purchase, considering it shouldn't take you more than three months to complete it.

 

[Stratelier]

Yeah especially in a game that has stressed the essential nature of the multiplayer aspect since day 1, there's really no defense.

Heck, online multiplayer wasn't even a thing until Gen 4. Local multiplayer is still better, if you can actually get set up for it....

According to a website called business insider Fortnight of all godsdamned things DOES NOT require paying this subscription to play. :\ I didn't think it was possible for me to have any further distaste for the entire Fortnight thing. But yeah. Bravo they managed to do it.

Nintendo online clearly has two APIs -- free and subscription -- and certain guidelines and agreements regarding how games are allowed to use which tier for what functions (not that this didn't already cause problems when they started enforcing the subscription basis).

 

[Almonds]

I'm hoping this is something that you only have to pay once for.

 

[PkmnTrainerV]

all the pre-DS (except for FRLG, i guess? i don't remember how the adapter worked) games required a link cable to trade-- assuming this is with a friend, elsewise you need two systems and two games and the cable. i'd brush it off and say that it's cheap so no biggie, but then again a $20/year sub that is dirt cheap monthly is causing quite the stir so hm. all of the games from DS onwards require an internet connection ($$) unless you're using local wireless or bumming off of public wifi (i honestly don't know how that works on the modern Nintendo stuff, but i know it wouldn't work for the earlier systems).

Pre-DS era was more of a technology issue rather than a conscious decision.
As soon as they could, they moved trading to wireless.

And did you even read my post? I explicitly mentioned nothing ridiculous like the cost of an internet connection counts. You use an internet connection for a LOT more than trading virtual critters over a game console. Almost everyone has an Internet connection these days.

the reality is is that with the previous iterations of Nintendo's wireless stuff there was an implicit agreement: yeah the service is free, but it's also pretty trash. and reality is is that Nintendo was likely running this service at a loss simply because the investment of improving service wasn't worth it. welcome to life and money 101: there are no free lunches; the cost is there somewhere. with everything being increasingly online all the time, you can't just run an internet service for free.

And I’m pretty sure there’s no significant improvement in the service quality, is there? You admit in the same post that the service is meh.

 

[TechSkylander1518]

Not to mention that Internet service isn't purchased through Nintendo, so they're not profiting from it like they are the online subscription.

 

[Poneto]

not really sure charging $20/year for a service really constitutes money-grabbing, but go off. money-grabbing is charging the industry standard rate of $50 and still delivering the fairly meh service that NSO is.

the reality is is that with the previous iterations of Nintendo's wireless stuff there was an implicit agreement: yeah the service is free, but it's also pretty trash. and reality is is that Nintendo was likely running this service at a loss simply because the investment of improving service wasn't worth it. welcome to life and money 101: there are no free lunches; the cost is there somewhere. with everything being increasingly online all the time, you can't just run an internet service for free.

with respects to completing the pokedex, the NSO can be a one-time purchase, considering it shouldn't take you more than three months to complete it.

Nintendo is nowhere near running at a loss; they made more than a billion dollars last year. And at no pont has Pokemon ever been free, since we've had to pay for every installment.

And I don't know what you're talking about when you call the wireless service trash, I can't think of anything wrong with it. Its function perfectly, allowing me to have battles or trade with people worldover any time I want. What more do you need of a wireless service?

 

[PkmnTrainerV]

Nintendo is nowhere near running at a loss; they made more than a billion dollars last year. And at no pont has Pokemon ever been free, since we've had to pay for every installment.

And Nintendo are notoriously reluctant to sell things on a loss, in fact Wii U (and the 3DS price drop) were the only consoles they sold at a loss as far as I remember.

They’re an almost literal money printing machine at this point. Nintendo can literally lose money every year and survive for 38 years. Nintendo has enough cash in the bank to run a deficit for 38 years - NintendoToday

 

[PinkIceFox]

The only things I've ever used online for in Pokemon in the past was wonder trade (the first time I was ever able to come close to getting every pokemon save legendary and mythical pokemon) and getting to evolve trade pokemon with my friend in another state.

One year my friend even spent a month or two in X/Y to get me a Shiny Hoppip for my birthday.

I won't be experiencing anything like that again, thanks to the Nintendo Online subscription. Even if I'm going to have money now thanks to disability stuff, I won't be getting that subscription. Because I don't subscribe to the idea of rewarding people for bad behavior.

 

[Alola]

Note: A Nintendo Switch Online membership (paid) is required to use the Battle Stadium. There is no need to set up a Pokémon Global Link account.

A sad fan am I.

 

[Knightwolf09]

I don't know what you guys expected. This was inevitable ever since Switch Online Membership was announced. Doesn't mean I'm happy about it either. People got to play games for free for months then Nintendo come in like a bouncer saying "There's a toll in the hall now".

 

[Oriden]

I don't know what you guys expected. This was inevitable ever since Switch Online Membership was announced. Doesn't mean I'm happy about it either. People got to play games for free for months then Nintendo come in like a bouncer saying "There's a toll in the hall now".

Well, seeing it coming doesn't make the situation better. It still sucks.

 

[PinkIceFox]

I also felt that the culling of pokemon from the actual games was expected after the invention of Pokemon Bank and the lack of non-native pokemon dex entries in sun/moon/Ultrasun/Ultramoon. But that doesn't mean I'm gonna walk up to someone who doesn't want to buy the game and feel their enjoyment is lessened and tell them "tough titties". They have every right to be upset even if my personal play style is not affected by it at all.

Also I'd argue the fact that people got to play without an online subscription for months before Nintendo came over and hammered down the "No fun allowed: Pay to play" sign makes them WORSE than Sony and Microsoft. As far as I remember neither of them lured people in and let them buy games that require online to play (lookin at you, Splatoon2) and then shut them down and said "we know you already bought this game and have been enjoying it... but we decided we're gonna make people pay to play online now. Hand over subscription fee now plz. Unless you want to use that game you purchased as a fancy drink coaster now."

I've always been against online subscriptions for games. Even as a wee kiddo. I wanted to play so many MMORPGs. But the moment I heard about required subscription fees I decided computer gaming was not going to be my thing. If I pay for a game I like knowing I paid for it and its mine. I don't care to pay what's basically a rent to enjoy something I already bought. At least I can still enjoy most features without online interaction in a Pokemon game. There's at least no damned trophies that require you to do something online with someone or get things you can ONLY get online (middle finger to many games I have) on the switch. However it does mean I have to go back to never getting my pokemon that require trades to reach their final form. Or having fun with wonder trade. It's like being forced to go back to the lunch table in school and sitting alone because no one likes you for some damn reason.

They already sell games for more than they should. A digital only game should not cost the same as a physical copy (y'know since its literally just 1s and 0s and does not require costs for plastic casing, plastic disc/chip carts, microchips (in the case of carts), paper for the cover art, ink for the images on the disc/cart and cover art, text, shipping the packages to stores and whatever the stores take for their share of the game cost). But here we are, spending the same amount whether I get a physical copy or not.

I'm jaded and depressed about most things in life. So I'll slap my sad face tinfoil hat on and cry that they'll soon be asking for subscription fees if you want to reinstall the game after a certain number of times on your system if you choose to delete it (like I had to do with many games on my PS4-especially bethesda games with their stupid Creation Club required massive updates) in order to have space to play another game. If I recall right, a lot of Sims3 games had like 3 installs, then you had to jump through hoops to even install the game you purchased again by calling customer service or something to get more allowance installations. Luckily my computer only died on me like twice in the time it took me to get tired of the Sims 3. I still wonder if I can even install them again if I wanted to.

TL;DR - Slippery Slopes. People have a right to be upset. It can and probably will get worse if people don't raise a stink.

 

[Poneto]

I also felt that the culling of pokemon from the actual games was expected after the invention of Pokemon Bank and the lack of non-native pokemon dex entries in sun/moon/Ultrasun/Ultramoon. But that doesn't mean I'm gonna walk up to someone who doesn't want to buy the game and feel their enjoyment is lessened and tell them "tough titties". They have every right to be upset even if my personal play style is not affected by it at all.

Also I'd argue the fact that people got to play without an online subscription for months before Nintendo came over and hammered down the "No fun allowed: Pay to play" sign makes them WORSE than Sony and Microsoft. As far as I remember neither of them lured people in and let them buy games that require online to play (lookin at you, Splatoon2) and then shut them down and said "we know you already bought this game and have been enjoying it... but we decided we're gonna make people pay to play online now. Hand over subscription fee now plz. Unless you want to use that game you purchased as a fancy drink coaster now."

I've always been against online subscriptions for games. Even as a wee kiddo. I wanted to play so many MMORPGs. But the moment I heard about required subscription fees I decided computer gaming was not going to be my thing. If I pay for a game I like knowing I paid for it and its mine. I don't care to pay what's basically a rent to enjoy something I already bought. At least I can still enjoy most features without online interaction in a Pokemon game. There's at least no damned trophies that require you to do something online with someone or get things you can ONLY get online (middle finger to many games I have) on the switch. However it does mean I have to go back to never getting my pokemon that require trades to reach their final form. Or having fun with wonder trade. It's like being forced to go back to the lunch table in school and sitting alone because no one likes you for some damn reason.

They already sell games for more than they should. A digital only game should not cost the same as a physical copy (y'know since its literally just 1s and 0s and does not require costs for plastic casing, plastic disc/chip carts, microchips (in the case of carts), paper for the cover art, ink for the images on the disc/cart and cover art, text, shipping the packages to stores and whatever the stores take for their share of the game cost). But here we are, spending the same amount whether I get a physical copy or not.

I'm jaded and depressed about most things in life. So I'll slap my sad face tinfoil hat on and cry that they'll soon be asking for subscription fees if you want to reinstall the game after a certain number of times on your system if you choose to delete it (like I had to do with many games on my PS4-especially bethesda games with their stupid Creation Club required massive updates) in order to have space to play another game. If I recall right, a lot of Sims3 games had like 3 installs, then you had to jump through hoops to even install the game you purchased again by calling customer service or something to get more allowance installations. Luckily my computer only died on me like twice in the time it took me to get tired of the Sims 3. I still wonder if I can even install them again if I wanted to.

TL;DR - Slippery Slopes. People have a right to be upset. It can and probably will get worse if people don't raise a stink.

You also have less rights over digital games. Remember the days you could lend, or even--gasp--give a game away to a friend". ha. Hahahahaha. Thats practically a criminal offense these days (or quite literally in Japan).

 

[Extroth]

For me, the $20 a year is not a big deal overall. But I recognize that I'm a privileged man with a good job, money in savings, and a 401K. And no kids so I save a lot of money that way as well.

But too many subscription services is a good way to bleed money and for some reason, everything is a subscription service nowadays. I put up with adds where I can to keep from having to get another subscription service for another thing I'm only going to use once and a while. But that's not an option with switch online services.

My hope is that Pokemon home is free with switch online and I don't have to pay another subscription fee on top of the $20 a year.

If there is a silver lining to this, it's that I won't have to put up with the garbage GTS anymore, good riddance.

 

[CynthiaLover]

While I'm not fond of adding more fuel to this fire, I have been doing some research on Switch Online, and I've realized something that I didn't know before. The fact of the matter is that Switch Online is a paid service that DOESN'T improve the quality of the games. Yeah, that was bit of a surprise to me. So, basically, you're paying for something that doesn't actually make the games better. Plus, not all Switch games will get dedicated servers to support them. I was surprised to learn that Splatoon 2 doesn't have a dedicated server, relying on port-to-port for online interaction, and it's the biggest multiplayer game on the Switch right now (at least last I checked). While I assume that Pokemon will get a dedicated server, given the size of the franchise, if Splatoon 2 hasn't gotten one, then that worries me a bit. Port-to-Port access heavily depends on one's internet service, and not everyone has high-quality internet, so it makes it rather spotty. The second someone disconnects, be it by accident or via rage quit, it ends everything in one shot. Plus, it can cause very bad lagging, like what happens with Smash Ultimate online, so it can end up making or breaking the game because of such issues. Granted, I haven't gained a Switch Online account to experience it first-hand, but I have seen and heard a lot of other players talk about it, plus my own research in the subject.

So, yeah, you're paying money for a service that doesn't do squat for improving the games you play on it. On the contrary, it can actually cause more problems. Plus, again, not all games get dedicated servers for it, since even Splatoon 2 doesn't have one (at least last I checked), and it's currently the biggest multiplayer game on the Switch. So, that doesn't bode well for Pokemon to me. I hope it will get a dedicated server to at least lessen the issue, but I'm not getting my hopes up, as if something as big as Splatoon 2 didn't get one, then that doesn't exactly inspire confidence. So, not only is there an actual price to this service, but it doesn't do anything to actually improve the games you play, and in many cases can actually create bigger headaches. Unless Nintendo gets their rears in gear and fix that before another massive multiplayer game like Sword/Shield hit the airwaves, it'll make having a Switch Online account even more tedious and problematic, on top of the fact that it's a paid service. So, yeah, that just throws yet another wrinkle into this whole paid service for your games that doesn't actually help make them any better.

 

[PinkIceFox]

This does not surprise me at all. Lag while playing online sounds absolutely horrendous if it's anything as bad as what I saw during a Proton Jon stream of Mario Maker 2 a while back.