• 4chan is an 18+ website, and as such we do not want to expose our underage users to that site.

    You may post screen shots and text from 4chan, but direct linking to the site, or it's archival sites is not allowed.

    Thanks.

  • Hey guys! Have you heard? We now have popup
    Yes, Popups!
    messages for your forum posts. Learn more about it here!
  • To keep up with the hype driven by Sword and Shield's release, we are taking applications for new moderators in our Current Events: Sword and Shield as well as Anime and Manga sections.

    For more information, see this thread.We hope you all consider joining our team!
  • We hope you're enjoying Sword and Shield so far! So that everyone can enjoy it and not be spoiled, please keep the all story spoilers and any images from the games in the appropriate sections or in spoiler tags until January 3rd.

    Since spoiler tags are not allowed in signatures, please do not put images from the games in your signature either. You can list the names of new Pokémon if you want to list your team in your signature.

Shame! *rings bell*

Previously known as 'Isamu Akai'
Joined
Jun 1, 2011
Messages
2,463
Reaction score
1,674
I don't hate the online service, but I'm not happy with it either and I certainly do understand the common issues with it. I admittedly only pay the service just so I can have the save cloud feature. I don't play multiplayer at all and the NES app is a sorry state. So I'm not exactly doing any good by paying for a service that I otherwise wouldn't bother with were it not for the cloud.

Although I will admit that the service got a tiny bit better when they rolled out the SNES app with a fairly good selection of games. Not to dig on the NES or anything since it is one of my favorite classic consoles, but not all games in its library were that great and the app seemed to only pick the more lackluster ones. I was hoping for a SNES app the day they first announced the service's features.

Though the SNES app still doesn't make the service in its entirety better. I think the only thing that makes me a little more "forgiving" toward the paid subscription is that I heard that online infrastructure and servers can be really expensive. If that is true, then it's truly impressive that Nintendo went free for as long as they did. That and the belief that the service would get better overtime, but it's been such a slow process that I admittedly don't hold onto that belief anymore. I am happy though that the year-long subscription is relatively cheap, at least for me.
 
Charizard Enthusiast (King of the Pocket Monsters)
Joined
Dec 3, 2018
Messages
599
Reaction score
1,698
Hail! I'd speak a Jon meme but for the life of me I cannot think of a single one right now! xD
Yeah, I can't remember any either.
Friends, it is not over yet. In time... a ProtonJon meme will come (to mind). Farewell, friends.

But, in all seriousness, if there's something that I've learned form Jon's streams regarding the Switch's online stuff, is that it is really subpar. Matches can end up lagging, people getting disconnected, the player or even entire teams ending up at a disadvantage because of circumstances that are beyond one person's control... It doesn't happen every time, but it still happens often enough to be annoying or outright infuriating at times. Which is kind of the big problem with the NSO: if you're gonna make people pay you money for a service, at least make sure that said service is up to snuff.
 
PinkIceTales!
Joined
Mar 24, 2010
Messages
1,878
Reaction score
4,651
Futons for all! We are blessed this day!

But yeah, stuff like this makes me even less likely to want to use the online features. Especially if we get suspended from interacting for a while because 'oops you lost connection mid-trade! NOE CHEETIN.'
 
Formerly Juztiz
Joined
Mar 3, 2019
Messages
354
Reaction score
1,155
I have NSO and I don't really have a problem with paying for it. Sure, I won't lie, I also would prefer not to pay for something. But on the other hand, I do not mind paying for a service. And it is a service. The quality is of course arguable, and whether or not for one personally the price is justified is highly subjective, but quite literally demanding to get a service for free just because it used to be free sounds quite entitled.

Don't get me wrong, I know being in a situation when money is tight. I've lived it. And I'm definitely not saying being of low income means you don't deserve nice things, but....if you are able to afford a console and at the very least one game for it (and just owning a single game for a console you have is kind of arguable and a rare case on its own, but for the sake of argument...) then the NSO fee should, in comparison, be doable. Most especially since you don't have to keep it going, but can just pay for a month/year and use it, then stop.

I'm not saying the online service of NSO on its own is necessarily worth it (I hardly do multiplayer, so I couldn't judge it) but there's that NSO-specific offer of paying 100€ for 2 tickets that each get me one game from a list, and it's pretty much full price games that I'd otherwise spend 60~70€ on, if not used.
So, factually, if I just use that offer once a year, I got what I pay for the service back. And on top of that get to play NES and now SNES games for free which is great, because my first console was N64 and like this I can try out games I couldn't before.

Free things are great, but personally for all I'm getting in exchange for paying my membership, I personally am willing to pay for it for as long as I still actively play games on my Switch.

Nintendo isn't evil for charging money for a service, that's kinda how business works. Selling things people don't usually need, but want (and think they need).
 
Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 12, 2016
Messages
3,349
Reaction score
9,536
quite literally demanding to get a service for free just because it used to be free sounds quite entitled.
It's not getting the service for free, though- it's getting the service after paying for the console, the video game, and the internet connection. And it's generally expected that the price of the product includes the cost of other things-the 300$ for a Switch isn't just for the materials, but also to fund the paychecks of the people who assemble them, those that designed the product, and so on. And until just recently, the cost of internet servers had seemingly been include with the cost of consoles and games, because consumers never had to pay for them. If the cost of materials, staff wages, and internet servers could be handled by selling 200$ consoles and 40$ games, then where is the money going if a 300$ console and 60$ game (even if bought digitally) still needs another 20$ for servers?

If it was due to something like a wage increase, I think it'd be received better, but there hasn't really been anything indicating that it was done for that purpose, which makes it look like they're just having customers pay extra so the bill isn't taken out of their income. And I think "I want my customers to pay this bill so I can make more money" sounds more entitled than "I want the product I paid for to continue to give a service that, for years prior, had always been included in the cost of the item."
Nintendo isn't evil for charging money for a service, that's kinda how business works. Selling things people don't usually need, but want (and think they need).
Part of business is the company handling their expenses, and not just billing the customers. Movie theaters don't charge you to clean the seats, supermarkets don't charge you for upkeep of registers, and streaming sites don't charge you for the rights of each movie or TV show you watch. Instead, they pay for it with the income generated from the sales for tickets, groceries, and membership.
 
Formerly Juztiz
Joined
Mar 3, 2019
Messages
354
Reaction score
1,155
If it was due to something like a wage increase, I think it'd be received better, but there hasn't really been anything indicating that it was done for that purpose, which makes it look like they're just having customers pay extra so the bill isn't taken out of their income. And I think "I want my customers to pay this bill so I can make more money" sounds more entitled than "I want the product I paid for to continue to give a service that, for years prior, had always been included in the cost of the item."
Do you really think that, though?
There's also been complaints of games being more expensive than they used to be. But actually - and honestly let's not dive into this too much - in general, there's the inflation rate. Things, literally everything, gets more expensive. This includes resources, which would eventually impact the price of the finished game.
Whether or not Nintendo raised wages more than usual I don't know and I'm not sure it's something you could research. It's not only about raising wages, though. Maybe they just hired more new employees to be able to keep at their quality (or further improve it) which could be increased cost.

But even all that aside, my point at the core is still that I do not mind being charged for a service I directly use. For most games, NSO isn't required to play them, it's an extra. See it like Amiibo - just...well, cheaper. It's an extra that makes the game more enjoyable and in cases you wonder why you have to pay on top of what you paid for your video game to get it, but at the end of the day, the game is still very much playable and enjoyable without it.

Nice examples, though, but to counter them... Should you get free groceries because you already bought a fridge and a stove and couldn't really use them without groceries?
Should you get free light bulbs for life because you already pay your electricity bills?
Free furniture because you rent an apartment and it's obvious and common sense that you need furniture?

The thing is, not everything is a good comparison just because it supports your point. In a cinema I don't pay an extra fee to have it clean because it's not a choice, the clean up and the wage for the staff impacts the ticket price. They don't let me buy a cheaper ticket for a seat full of leftover popcorn or spilled soda just because I'd want it.
As a customer, I'm always charged for these things, but it's indirectly.

And you are allowed to feel different about this than I do, of course, but I personally prefer a 20 bucks subscription I can decide to pay for and get its service or just ignore and not pay for it if I'm not interested over slapping an extra bit onto the price of everything just to cover whatever is the base for this fee's amount. (Which is partially servers, obviously, but considering the NES and SNES offer I'd argue anything related to those projects, and we don't know how many other such virtual consoles they are currently working on, also factors into that.)

And along those lines - yeah, you paid for a console and a game. And that's what you got. A console and a game. Online play is extra. As I said, it's nice if free, but demanding it to be free is entitled.
I don't think a business wanting to make money is entitled, it's quite literally their main goal. The more money Nintendo makes, the more (ideally at least) they can fund their projects.

I'm not saying you can't be sour about having to pay a subscription. Trust me, I'd like to have less of a reoccuring cost myself (Prime, NSO, once in a while Netflix, phone bill - cancelled PS Plus as I currently don't use it anyway) but at the end of the day, it's still on me whether or not I want to use the service, and if I do, I pay up for it.

Thaaaaat and really, I find 20 bucks a year currently justified for what I'm getting in exchange. Most especially with the ticket offer thing I mentioned, it really brings me to +/-0 if I just use it once a year (if not actually saving me money)
 
Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 12, 2016
Messages
3,349
Reaction score
9,536
Do you really think that, though?
Yes? Why would I say that if I didn't believe that?

I'm not saying that complaints would all go away, but look at the response to the delay of Animal Crossing as an example. Some people were frustrated, but plenty of people spoke out in defense of it, saying they were willing to deal with a delay in a game because they knew it would lead to better working conditions for the staff behind it.
But even all that aside, my point at the core is still that I do not mind being charged for a service I directly use.
I'm not saying you have to be upset, but just because you don't mind doesn't mean that other people are being entitled because they do.
Nice examples, though, but to counter them... Should you get free groceries because you already bought a fridge and a stove and couldn't really use them without groceries?
Should you get free light bulbs for life because you already pay your electricity bills?
Free furniture because you rent an apartment and it's obvious and common sense that you need furniture?
The fridge and stove companies aren't selling groceries with their products, electric companies aren't selling lightbulbs with their service, and apartments aren't always including new furniture. (in some cases, apartments do include furniture, which is covered by the rent-same as my other examples) My examples were all things that are already included with what's being purchased.
The thing is, not everything is a good comparison just because it supports your point. In a cinema I don't pay an extra fee to have it clean because it's not a choice, the clean up and the wage for the staff impacts the ticket price. They don't let me buy a cheaper ticket for a seat full of leftover popcorn or spilled soda just because I'd want it.
As a customer, I'm always charged for these things, but it's indirectly.
That is literally my point.
Instead, they pay for it with the income generated from the sales for tickets, groceries, and membership.
The servers were being paid for indirectly through the cost of the games and consoles.
And you are allowed to feel different about this than I do, of course,
But you'll still consider me entitled if I do?
just to cover whatever is the base for this fee's amount. (Which is partially servers, obviously, but considering the NES and SNES offer I'd argue anything related to those projects, and we don't know how many other such virtual consoles they are currently working on, also factors into that.)
If people have to pay for another service they might not even want to get a service originally included with their product, why are they entitled for being upset with that?
And along those lines - yeah, you paid for a console and a game. And that's what you got. A console and a game. Online play is extra. As I said, it's nice if free, but demanding it to be free is entitled.
Online play was only just now made to be extra. For years, people have been paying for enough to get online play included. Even in the Switch's lifetime, paying for a console and game was enough to get online play. The only reason it's extra now is because Nintendo decided otherwise. And if a company can just decide that something's no longer included with the price of a product, and a consumer is entitled for disliking the extra charge, then what's to stop a company from putting a price tag on everything? 5$ for every Pokemon because you paid for the game card, and that's what you got-Pokemon are extra. 10$ for every town, because you paid for Pokemon battles, and that's what you got-setting is extra.
I don't think a business wanting to make money is entitled, it's quite literally their main goal. The more money Nintendo makes, the more (ideally at least) they can fund their projects.
I didn't say it was entitled to want to make money-I said it was entitled to charge extra for something that was already included with the cost of the product. And the goal of the consumer is to get the most value for the lowest cost. If there's no problem with a business deciding to put a higher price on something solely because they want to make money, and that's their goal, then why is it a problem when a consumer is upset about it because it costs more, and that interferes with their goal?
 
Joined
Nov 22, 2013
Messages
2,019
Reaction score
2,234
no Nintendo does not and did not price their products to absorb the cost of providing an internet service to the buyers. as a starting point, a company of Nintendo's industry and size is not going to price based on cost. large firms typically price things at what you will pay for. the most realistic situation is that Nintendo simply paid for what was then probably a small internet bill and just went on their way. it made sense! the internet wasn't quite as ubiquitous and all-permeating then. fast-forward a little bit into a world where everything is connected all the time and now you can see how what would've then been a small internet bill can become significantly larger by virtue of well, everyone always being on all the time. (hell, even FE:3H has an always-online component to it.) this matches their behavior of providing it for free initially, when the bill would've been tolerable, and then moving to paid as more and more people adopted the new system.
 
You will only shine if you are yourself!
Joined
Jan 8, 2016
Messages
1,513
Reaction score
1,261
I honestly do not know why you would have to play extra money to play online, where you didn't have to in the past. 20 euros extra for a game.
 
Face the Darkness
Joined
Aug 1, 2013
Messages
717
Reaction score
1,069
Does anyone have any actual information about where this money is going? Or are we all just spitballing?
 
Join the BlueLions!
Joined
Aug 25, 2018
Messages
235
Reaction score
301
It’s unfortunate, but at least it’s only 20$ annually, which is cheap compared to Microsoft and Sony. The clouds feature is nice too. It was meh at first, but it’s actually getting better; particularly the disconnects, there are much less in Smash than before. Since I play format like Singles online, I’m still going to use it.
 
Top