- Nov 7, 2017
- Reaction score
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.
Hail! I'd speak a Jon meme but for the life of me I cannot think of a single one right now! xD
Friends, it is not over yet. In time... a ProtonJon meme will come (to mind). Farewell, friends.Yeah, I can't remember any either.
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?quite literally demanding to get a service for free just because it used to be free sounds quite entitled.
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.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).
Do you really think that, though?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."
Yes? Why would I say that if I didn't believe that?Do you really think that, though?
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.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.
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.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?
That is literally my point.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.
The servers were being paid for indirectly through the cost of the games and consoles.Instead, they pay for it with the income generated from the sales for tickets, groceries, and membership.
But you'll still consider me entitled if I do?And you are allowed to feel different about this than I do, of course,
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?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.)
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.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 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?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.