Not to mention that there's other Switch games that handle that just fine on their own, like Fortnite.
Probably because the other companies don't affect Pokemon games?
I think it's more that was more my annoyance talking because I always see people talking about Nintendo, but never the others except I think Microsoft at the time (along with everything else that was wrong with them). Sorry if it sounded badly.
Server costs and the same reasons microtransactions exist...just because they can. If I'm not mistaken, wasn't Microsoft the first one to do that? Like I said since it's become standard, it's a necessary evil since if you don't follow the big boys, you get called a baby console forever.
Listen here, you. I have no income and only recently got accepted for disability aid. I saved up $300 dollars to get a switch with help from my mom by getting some money every month by cooking dinner and cleaning the bathroom every week. I saved up the money to buy my 3DS a few years back too.
Otherwise you end up like those stuck up rich people who say things like "They can't be poor they have a stove AND a microwave." Yes that's legit something I've heard before.You say that, but I recently stopped playing Pocket Camp because I got sick and tired of being unable to get the limited time items I wanted because, without going to the store and spending real life money on bundles, I never had enough Leaf Tickets to get most things. Even spending a lot of time every week to earn every measly bunch of 3 tickets the event goals provided. So, yeah, while you don't HAVE to spend real money on that game at least, they still somehow managed to make an ANIMAL CROSSING game Pay2Win.
While I do agree Pocket Camp is bad at that, it doesn't goes to the level of Dungeon Keeper. It might be the only game where no one wanted to pay anything.
True, ongoing services do require a source of ongoing funding. The exact situation is obviously a lot more complicated than that, but the underlying principle is fair enough: if it doesn't pay for itself its operating costs must be subsidized from something else.
Do those games have their own online servers or do they just run peer-to-peer?
I'm honestly not sure. It could be the case that they all run peer-to-peer, but I kind of doubt that. And I mean, I do understand the costs of running online servers, but it still just seems kind of off to me regardless.
Non sequitur.
... that may have actually been a trick question on my part. At a minimum, a central server gives the game a reliable source to find and connect with other players in the game (even when actual in-game packets are sent via peer-to-peer).
