- Joined
- Nov 22, 2013
- Messages
- 2,080
- Reaction score
- 2,322
i mean, it's always been locked behind a paywall.That shouldn’t be locked behind a paywall.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
i mean, it's always been locked behind a paywall.That shouldn’t be locked behind a paywall.
Since when pre-LGPE was trading locked behind a paywall?i mean, it's always been locked behind a paywall.
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 ($$) unless you're using local wireless or bumming off of public wifi (i honestly don't know how that works on the modern Nintendo stuff, but i know it wouldn't work for the earlier systems).Since when pre-LGPE was trading locked behind a paywall?
I hope it’s nothing ridiculous like the cost of the game or the cost of an Internet connection...
all the pre-DS (except for FRLG, i guess? i don't remember how the adapter worked) games required a link cable to trade-- assuming this is with a friend, elsewise you need two systems and two games and the cable. i'd brush it off and say that it's cheap so no biggie, but then again a $20/year sub that is dirt cheap monthly is causing quite the stir so hm. all of the games from DS onwards require an internet connection ($$) 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).
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 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.
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....Yeah especially in a game that has stressed the essential nature of the multiplayer aspect since day 1, there's really no defense.
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).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.
Pre-DS era was more of a technology issue rather than a conscious decision.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).
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.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.
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.
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.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.
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.
Well, seeing it coming doesn't make the situation better. It still sucks.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".
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.