Search This Blog

April 9, 2017

Don't make excuses for online multiplayer

  1. Boards
  2. Nintendo Switch
  3. Don't make excuses for online multiplayer
TalesOfGod 1 day ago#1
Let's ignore Nintendo for a minute and focus on the other two.

- PlayStation was working fine without having the need to pay for online multiplayer and it was fine with the PS3. Heck, their service barely changed (if at all) after they introduced it and the free games that they offer are a joke. 
Heck, if you had the adapter for it, the PS2 worked with online multiplayer and it was decent with no need to pay for it.

- The original Xbox had games that would work online without paying for it and the Xbox 360/Xbox One had no reason to pay for it. Again, it offers nothing new with paying for it than it did before or in comparison with the competition. 
I remember that one of the main issues with why people went for the PS3 and the Wii was the free online multiplayer which both companies said that they wouldn't need to resort to online multiplayer. 

- Steam had never needed for you to pay for online multiplayer and has been free all of this time.
Even Origin (recognizing that it would be downright idiotic to make you pay for it), has made online multiplayer free on their service. 

- Now we move on to Nintendo, which want you to pay for online multiplayer even though you have never needed to in the past. 

- This is ignoring the handhelds which you don't need to pay to play online multiplayer but I expect that they will make some idiotic excuse to make you pay for it.

Now then, I'm sure that people will point fingers about the difference between the two and Nintendo but getting to the meat of the real problem. Seriously, is there really any defence for either of them? 

What did you gain that was so attractive that you had to pay for online multiplayer? 
A bunch of measly "free" games (that you pay for in excuse of a free service) that most of the time, you don't even want? Those "free" games that could easily be its own subscription service?

TL/DR:
There is no logical reason why you should need to pay for online multiplayer on any console or handheld.
(edited 1 day ago)stickyreportquote
Sethera 1 day ago#2
On point. As a PC gamer I can't ever see myself paying for online. Especially since I barely play online at all except for some coop fun with friends. I played maybe a match of Fast RMX online and that's it.
The ability to destroy a planet is insignificant next to the power of the Force.
Freedom of speech is words that they will bend.
-Komaiko54- 1 day ago#3
It's $20 :P

I agree with you tho, we can only hope it comes with actual worth while features to make it worth paying for. Maybe their online servers will actually improve unlike the other two
"Link is hot, I gotta say, Link is hot." - Reggie Fils-aime, Nintendo president
https://i.imgur.com/FHFg24N.gif http://i.imgur.com/UVf23d0.gif me irl
MlREFOX 1 day ago#4
There is a reason, and it is called profit. Even if you think corporations should exist just to make you happy, they really exist just to make money.
slyman19 1 day ago#5
No original Xbox game could be played online without paying. 

Here's the thing, servers and security cost a good chunk of money, so I fully understand and support paid online.
Switch name: WoodFall 
Switch FC: 1147-2248-5224
Nordini 1 day ago#6
I agree that it shouldn't cost anything.


The reason why people didn't fuss about it when the Xbox 360's online was paid was because the 360 was providing a vastly superior service to the Wii's and the PS3's.

Then Sony comes along this generation and says "Wait, wait, we will improve our service and give you high quality online too! So now we charge!" Mostly the PS4's service has been an improvement over the PS3's which is why there hasn't been too much complaining, but it still wasn't enough to warrant charging.

Now nintendo is jumping on the paid bandwagon. The reason people are throwing a huge fit is because people don't believe that Nintendo is truly going to provide a vastlly improved online service to warrant the price. Nintendo's has been by far the worst on the Wii U and the Wii. 

If Nintendo does truly step up their game and provide a quality service (splatoon 2 testfire seemed fine), I won't complain.

Though in the end, yes, none of these services should be charging anymore.
"Being third and fourth best selling game this year does not make it a financially successful game." - jason19192
TalesOfGod 1 day ago#7
MlREFOX posted...
There is a reason, and it is called profit. Even if you think corporations should exist just to make you happy, they really exist just to make money.


Exactly. 
They introduced it for the sole purpose of making more money and not that the service got any better.
I agree. Don't care for these "free" games they give you. Plus should be optional like on PS3. Great for those that subscribe and get discounts and rental games. I just want to play online man.
Games: Persona 5, Snipperclips, Quantum Break 
PS/XB: ENDBOSS78 Nin: ENDBOSS
slyman19 1 day ago#9
TalesOfGod posted...
MlREFOX posted...
There is a reason, and it is called profit. Even if you think corporations should exist just to make you happy, they really exist just to make money.


Exactly. 
They introduced it for the sole purpose of making more money and not that the service got any better.

Part of it is to make money, but only a fool would deny that Xbox Live and PSN are not constantly improving.
Switch name: WoodFall 
Switch FC: 1147-2248-5224
Trumpanzee 1 day ago#10
I'm not paying anything and Fast RMX and Bomberman play just fine online.
Nordini 1 day ago#11
Trumpanzee posted...
I'm not paying anything and Fast RMX and Bomberman play just fine online.


You realize that's because Nintendo has given us a "free trial" until fall, right?
"Being third and fourth best selling game this year does not make it a financially successful game." - jason19192
slyman19 1 day ago#12
Nordini posted...
Trumpanzee posted...
I'm not paying anything and Fast RMX and Bomberman play just fine online.


You realize that's because Nintendo has given us a "free trial" until fall, right?

This certainly it's a free trial. Nintendo maybe stupid some times, but they know they can't charge for online the way it is right now.
Switch name: WoodFall 
Switch FC: 1147-2248-5224
Terotrous 1 day ago#13
TalesOfGod posted...
There is no logical reason why you should need to pay for online multiplayer on any console or handheld.

Obviously true, all of the paid multiplayer is still peer to peer anyway so you're paying for absolutely nothing at all, but unfortunately you have no choice other than to go PC-only.
http://www.backloggery.com/tero - My backloggery
http://whatliesbeyondnovel.blogspot.ca/ - A psychological fantasy novel series, book 2 finally complete
ikki5 1 day ago#14
Trumpanzee posted...
I'm not paying anything and Fast RMX and Bomberman play just fine online.



Probably because online is free at the moment. Come fall and you will be paying.
Toadette, most adorable Nintendo character! | PSN - JSampG / NNID - Sampsonj |
"Give me proof but not that link that proves it!"(paraphrase) - Baha05
Mabus51 1 day ago#15
When AWS and servers are free let me know. Last I heard things cost money. Get over it and get a job. This entitlement kids today have is atrocious.
slyman19 1 day ago#16
Terotrous posted...
TalesOfGod posted...
There is no logical reason why you should need to pay for online multiplayer on any console or handheld.

Obviously true, all of the paid multiplayer is still peer to peer anyway so you're paying for absolutely nothing at all, but unfortunately you have no choice other than to go PC-only.

Don't be so f***ing clueless. All or almost all of Microsoft's exclusives use dedicated servers. 

And it's absolutely stupid to ignore all the other aspects of online multiplayer, like security.
Switch name: WoodFall 
Switch FC: 1147-2248-5224
ikki5 1 day ago#17
Mabus51 posted...
When AWS and servers are free let me know. Last I heard things cost money. Get over it and get a job. This entitlement kids today have is atrocious.


You know most, most console games you p2p connections and servers are only match making.
Toadette, most adorable Nintendo character! | PSN - JSampG / NNID - Sampsonj |
"Give me proof but not that link that proves it!"(paraphrase) - Baha05
Terotrous 1 day ago#18
slyman19 posted...
Don't be so f***ing clueless. All or almost all of Microsoft's exclusives use dedicated servers.

For the sake of argument we'll assume this is correct (I'm not familiar enough with MS's first party games to know this off the top of my head). This still represents at best 5% of the games on XBox Live.

slyman19 posted...
And it's absolutely stupid to ignore all the other aspects of online multiplayer, like security.

Dedicated servers offer many advantages. However, an extremely small percentage of games use them. Most of the ones that do are on PC anyway, and they're usually still free.
http://www.backloggery.com/tero - My backloggery
http://whatliesbeyondnovel.blogspot.ca/ - A psychological fantasy novel series, book 2 finally complete
(edited 1 day ago)reportquote
What excuse?
I'll just refuse to participate. If it means I save $120 by not buying MK8 or Splatoon2, that's just a bonus.
slyman19 1 day ago#20
Terotrous posted...
slyman19 posted...
Don't be so f***ing clueless. All or almost all of Microsoft's exclusives use dedicated servers.

For the sake of argument we'll assume this is correct (I'm not familiar enough with MS's first party games to know this off the top of my head). This still represents at best 5% of the games on XBox Live.

slyman19 posted...
And it's absolutely stupid to ignore all the other aspects of online multiplayer, like security.

Dedicated servers offer many advantages. However, an extremely small percentage of games use them. Most of the ones that do are on PC anyway, and they're usually still free.


The fact is, you're too ignorant for your view on this matter to be taken seriously. 

You did zero research and just went off your foolish assumptions.
Switch name: WoodFall 
Switch FC: 1147-2248-5224
Terotrous 1 day ago#21
slyman19 posted...
You did zero research and just went off your foolish assumptions.

Lol. The fact that a handful of dedicated server games exist doesn't change the fact that like 95% of games run peer-to-peer. I think you're the one who hasn't done the research if you don't realize that this is the case.

Most people think that if you pay for online, you get dedicated servers for every game, which could not possibly be further from the truth.
http://www.backloggery.com/tero - My backloggery
http://whatliesbeyondnovel.blogspot.ca/ - A psychological fantasy novel series, book 2 finally complete
(edited 1 day ago)reportquote
slyman19 1 day ago#22
Terotrous posted...
slyman19 posted...
You did zero research and just went off your foolish assumptions.

Lol. The fact that a handful of dedicated server games exist doesn't change the fact that like 95% of games run peer-to-peer. I think you're the one who hasn't done the research if you don't realize that this is the case.

Where did you get that percentage? Was that another dumbass assumption?
Switch name: WoodFall 
Switch FC: 1147-2248-5224
Terotrous 1 day ago#23
slyman19 posted...
Where did you get that percentage? Was that another dumbass assumption?

It should be obvious that the percentage is not exact, but it's still very obviously the case that the vast majority of games run peer to peer. If you really want you can try to put together a list of games that don't (most of which will be on PC), which will immediately get crushed by a far larger list of peer to peer games.
http://www.backloggery.com/tero - My backloggery
http://whatliesbeyondnovel.blogspot.ca/ - A psychological fantasy novel series, book 2 finally complete
slyman19 1 day ago#24
Terotrous posted...
slyman19 posted...
Where did you get that percentage? Was that another dumbass assumption?

It should be obvious that the percentage is not exact, but it's still very obviously the case that the vast majority of games run peer to peer. If you really want you can try to put together a list of games that don't (most of which will be on PC), which will immediately get crushed by a far larger list of peer to peer games.

Sorry, but you need to provide evidence at this point. You're making claims that you're not backing up.
Switch name: WoodFall 
Switch FC: 1147-2248-5224
Terotrous 1 day ago#25
slyman19 posted...
Sorry, but you need to provide evidence at this point.

I don't need to provide evidence, because no one other than you seriously questions that this is the case, and I don't care whether you specifically believe it to be true or not.

Evidence is only necessary when attempting to support opinions that are not trivially obvious.
http://www.backloggery.com/tero - My backloggery
http://whatliesbeyondnovel.blogspot.ca/ - A psychological fantasy novel series, book 2 finally complete
JunDageki 1 day ago#26
2 years.
Never take life seriously. Nobody gets out alive anyway.
slyman19 1 day ago#27
Terotrous posted...
slyman19 posted...
Sorry, but you need to provide evidence at this point.

I don't need to provide evidence, because no one other than you seriously questions that this is the case, and I don't care whether you specifically believe it to be true or not.

Evidence is only necessary when attempting to support opinions that are not trivially obvious.

Incorrect. 

Evidence is needed. You're throwing out random percentages. The burden of proof is solely on you at this point. 

The fact that you weren't aware of Microsoft exclusives having dedicated servers calls into question the validity of any of your claims.
Switch name: WoodFall 
Switch FC: 1147-2248-5224
(edited 1 day ago)reportquote
Terotrous 1 day ago#28
Again, you're operating under the assumption that I care what you personally think, which I don't. You are free to believe what you want.

However, most people recognize that your statement "a handful of MS exclusives use dedicated servers" in no way contradicts the fact that most multiplayer games run peer-to-peer, whether you pay for online access or not.
http://www.backloggery.com/tero - My backloggery
http://whatliesbeyondnovel.blogspot.ca/ - A psychological fantasy novel series, book 2 finally complete
(edited 1 day ago)reportquote
If you said I had to pay $20 year in order to play Splatoon on a dedicated server. I would easily do it. I have no opinion or excuse until I know exactly what im getting from online.
slyman19 1 day ago#30
Terotrous posted...
Again, you're operating under the assumption that I care what you think, which I don't. You are free to believe what you want.

However, most people recognize that your statement "a handful of MS exclusives use dedicated servers" in no way contradicts the fact that most multiplayer games run peer-to-peer, whether you pay for online access or not.

Again, you need to show proof at this point. Have you ever had a debate before?
Switch name: WoodFall 
Switch FC: 1147-2248-5224
Terotrous 1 day ago#31
slyman19 posted...
Again, you need to show proof at this point. Have you ever had a debate before?

It's not a debate. I made a statement. You disagree with it. I don't care that you disagree.

For it to be a debate I would have to be at least somewhat invested in convincing you otherwise.

You're free to try to convince other people in this topic that your point of view is the correct one if you want, though it's clear that most people believe otherwise and you don't appear to have any method of supporting your point beyond the one you mentioned so I doubt you'll get far.
http://www.backloggery.com/tero - My backloggery
http://whatliesbeyondnovel.blogspot.ca/ - A psychological fantasy novel series, book 2 finally complete
(edited 1 day ago)reportquote
slyman19 1 day ago#32
Terotrous posted...
slyman19 posted...
Again, you need to show proof at this point. Have you ever had a debate before?

It's not a debate. I made a statement. You disagree with it. I don't care that you disagree.

For it to be a debate I would have to be at least somewhat invested in convincing you otherwise.

You're free to try to convince other people in this topic that your point of view is the correct one if you want, though it's very obviously not so I don't think you'll get very far.

At this point, everything you've said has become invalid. Your ignorance and inability to debate reflect extremely poorly upon you.
Switch name: WoodFall 
Switch FC: 1147-2248-5224
WRRYYYYers 1 day ago#33
There is no reason, but people will happily pay it so why not?
Mizavari 1 day ago#34
MlREFOX posted...
There is a reason, and it is called profit. Even if you think corporations should exist just to make you happy, they really exist just to make money.

What this guy said. Seriously, corporations don't Need to give you freebies. If you don't like it, just don't use it.
Terotrous 1 day ago#35
slyman19 posted...
At this point, everything you've said has become invalid. Your ignorance and inability to debate reflect extremely poorly upon you.

Lol, if it only it were that easy to convince people of things. Just disagree with someone, demand evidence of trivial claims, then when they refuse to humour you claim victory. Ezpz!

Hey guys, did you know that water actually isn't wet because I asked some guy to prove it to me and he ignored me?
http://www.backloggery.com/tero - My backloggery
http://whatliesbeyondnovel.blogspot.ca/ - A psychological fantasy novel series, book 2 finally complete
(edited 1 day ago)reportquote
quazyqual 1 day ago#36
TalesOfGod posted...
MlREFOX posted...
There is a reason, and it is called profit. Even if you think corporations should exist just to make you happy, they really exist just to make money.


Exactly. 
They introduced it for the sole purpose of making more money and not that the service got any better.


You know it's not better how? The paid service isn't in effect for many months.
Nintendo, is a great games and toys company, industry leading.
Anyone who claims otherwise, is missing the big picture and ignoring thirty years of VG history.
slyman19 1 day ago#37
Terotrous posted...
slyman19 posted...
At this point, everything you've said has become invalid. Your ignorance and inability to debate reflect extremely poorly upon you.

Lol, if it only it were that easy to convince people of things. Just disagree with someone, demand evidence of trivial claims, then when they refuse to humour you claim victory. Ezpz!

Hey guys, did you know that water actually isn't wet because I asked some guy to prove it to me and he ignored me?


God, you are so clueless. 

Saying water is wet and claiming 95% of console games are P2P are two different beasts. Proof is needed for things that don't fall under common sense. 

Hint: most things regarding networking and computers do not fall under common sense.
Switch name: WoodFall 
Switch FC: 1147-2248-5224
(edited 1 day ago)reportquote
quazyqual 1 day ago#38
bluebomber2425 posted...
If you said I had to pay $20 year in order to play Splatoon on a dedicated server. I would easily do it. I have no opinion or excuse until I know exactly what im getting from online.
Nintendo, is a great games and toys company, industry leading.
Anyone who claims otherwise, is missing the big picture and ignoring thirty years of VG history.
Trumpanzee posted...
I'm not paying anything and Fast RMX and Bomberman play just fine online.

Paid online starts in fall

Also Bomberman does not play fine online
3DS FC: 3625-9522-4724
IGN: Jack | Proud member of C.E.A.L. and Admin of Solgaleo's Pokepuff | My Event List: http://tinyurl.com/hxro7kc | TSV: 2360
Terotrous 1 day ago#40
slyman19 posted...
God, you are so clueless. 

Saying water is wet and claiming 95% of console games are P2P are two different beasts. Proof is needed for things that don't fall under common sense. 

Hint: most things regarding networking and computers do not fall under common sense.

Seems like common sense to everyone else.
http://www.backloggery.com/tero - My backloggery
http://whatliesbeyondnovel.blogspot.ca/ - A psychological fantasy novel series, book 2 finally complete
tc why did we let the ps vita slide and ps4/xbox360/one?

i mean biggest offender on gamesystem list by far is ps vita whats it do like 31$month for a messenger service (that pretty much puts a crazy cost on psn messages)

keep unfocused....
ps2/gamecube/xbox all had a bit bs system setups for online....
kind like setting up a dailup network throw the modem it makes you plug it into

then we have what sony said...
its the developers choice.... 

now we toss a ton of hate alll over place mainly focused on system makers then the developers who are main source of why we tend to hate the concept 
like connection coding....for online thats more developers then anyone and it tends to turn into (system maker name) fix your servers

paid dlc with some games.... (not counting amiibo their more optional figurine+unlimited dlc)

but yea more developers choice
then we also have local taxes passing laws for online digital buying that no one is a fan of targeting nintend/psn/xbox gamesystem stores
trolling
apparently unpopular opinion if reported as trolling is trolling on gamefaqs
slyman19 1 day ago#42
Terotrous posted...
slyman19 posted...
God, you are so clueless. 

Saying water is wet and claiming 95% of console games are P2P are two different beasts. Proof is needed for things that don't fall under common sense. 

Hint: most things regarding networking and computers do not fall under common sense.

Seems like common sense to everyone else.

And it's common sense to everyone except you that evidence is needed when claims are made.
Switch name: WoodFall 
Switch FC: 1147-2248-5224
Terotrous 1 day ago#43
slyman19 posted...
And it's common sense to everyone except you that evidence is needed when claims are made.

I don't see anyone else asking for evidence. Several people did make the same statement though.
http://www.backloggery.com/tero - My backloggery
http://whatliesbeyondnovel.blogspot.ca/ - A psychological fantasy novel series, book 2 finally complete
MlREFOX posted...
There is a reason, and it is called profit. Even if you think corporations should exist just to make you happy, they really exist just to make money.
Well, they're missing profit opportunities by not releasing their games on Steam and GOG as there are people who would rather buy them there and also not have to put up with the Switch and it's antics. Maybe, they should sell their games on those sites for extra money they wouldn't get otherwise.
The Switch is not our future.
slyman19 1 day ago#45
Terotrous posted...
slyman19 posted...
And it's common sense to everyone except you that evidence is needed when claims are made.

I don't see anyone else asking for evidence. Several people did make the same statement though.

I guess there are more ignorant people to join you.
Switch name: WoodFall 
Switch FC: 1147-2248-5224
Don't really care if there is a "logical" reason or not. The companies have made their decision, and so I decide whether or not it's worth it to me to pay for the service. I find Sony's worth the cost and, if I find Nintendo's worth it, I'll get it, too.
3DS FC: 0490-7858-5102
NS FC: SW-6739-0520-9699
Terotrous 1 day ago#47
slyman19 posted...
I guess there are more ignorant people to join you.

Either that or your hold a fringe position and haven't done anything to convince people that your argument has merit.
http://www.backloggery.com/tero - My backloggery
http://whatliesbeyondnovel.blogspot.ca/ - A psychological fantasy novel series, book 2 finally complete
-Komaiko54- posted...
It's $20 :P

I agree with you tho, we can only hope it comes with actual worth while features to make it worth paying for. Maybe their online servers will actually improve unlike the other two

$20 this year. Next time $40, then $80, etc...
F/C 5215-0096-6760
slyman19 1 day ago#49
Terotrous posted...
slyman19 posted...
I guess there are more ignorant people to join you.

Either that or your hold a fringe position and haven't done anything to convince people that your argument has merit.

Ha! You have no room to question someone else's argument. You provided zero proof when the burden was on you.

Come to think of it, it seems like you don't even know what my argument is.
Switch name: WoodFall 
Switch FC: 1147-2248-5224
Terotrous 1 day ago#50
slyman19 posted...
Come to think of it, it seems like you don't even know what my argument is.

Your argument is probably something along the lines of "paid online is good value (on XB1 at least) because Microsoft's 1st party games use dedicated servers".

However, as I noted, this is only a very small percentage of games on XBox One, and an even smaller percentage of games across all consoles combined, so it doesn't really change the fact that you're generally paying for peer to peer.

There are a couple other dedicated server games on console, like those made by Blizzard, but you don't need a subscription to play them on PC, so this doesn't make a strong argument in favour of paying for online on consoles anyway.
http://www.backloggery.com/tero - My backloggery
http://whatliesbeyondnovel.blogspot.ca/ - A psychological fantasy novel series, book 2 finally complete
  1. Boards
  2. Nintendo Switch
  3. Don't make excuses for online multiplayer
    1. Boards
    2. Nintendo Switch
    3. Don't make excuses for online multiplayer
    slyman19 1 day ago#51
    Terotrous posted...
    slyman19 posted...
    Come to think of it, it seems like you don't even know what my argument is.

    Your argument is probably something along the lines of "paid online is good value (on XB1 at least) because Microsoft's 1st party games use dedicated servers".

    However, as I noted, this is only a very small percentage of games on XBox One, and an even smaller percentage of games across all consoles combined, so it doesn't really change the fact that you're generally paying for peer to peer.

    There are a couple other dedicated server games on console, like those made by Blizzard, but you don't need a subscription to play them on PC, so this doesn't make a strong argument in favour of paying for online on consoles anyway.


    Interesting. You are more clueless than I thought. 

    My argument was that when you make a claim, you need to provide evidence. That's all.
    Switch name: WoodFall 
    Switch FC: 1147-2248-5224
    I'm not making excuses. If a company offers a service for a cost I as the consumer have the right to choose if I want to get the service or not. I get to see if the price matches the value I see in something.
    #53
    (message deleted)
    Terotrous 1 day ago#54
    slyman19 posted...
    My argument was that when you make a claim, you need to provide evidence. That's all.

    Where's your evidence to support that claim?
    http://www.backloggery.com/tero - My backloggery
    http://whatliesbeyondnovel.blogspot.ca/ - A psychological fantasy novel series, book 2 finally complete
    Aldo1981 1 day ago#55
    Terotrous posted...
    slyman19 posted...
    My argument was that when you make a claim, you need to provide evidence. That's all.

    Where's your evidence to support that claim?


    The clear sign of someone who lost the argument.
    Life is what happens when you're busy making other plans.
    slyman19 1 day ago#56
    Terotrous posted...
    slyman19 posted...
    My argument was that when you make a claim, you need to provide evidence. That's all.

    Where's your evidence to support that claim?

    It's common sense.
    Switch name: WoodFall 
    Switch FC: 1147-2248-5224
    Terotrous 1 day ago#57
    Aldo1981 posted...
    The clear sign of someone who lost the argument.

    Pointing out that someone is being completely hypocritical is usually how you win the argument.


    In general, evidence is not needed to support claims that are fairly obvious. In fact, providing a long justification for a trivial point generally increases the likelihood that people will just ignore the statement altogether, it's well-established that short, concise arguments tend to be most effective. People generally only demand evidence when they disagree with the point, as the other poster clearly did, seeing as how he tried to provide a counterargument. It was quickly shot down, then he started demanding evidence as a way to try to muddy the argument since he knew that providing a list of like 100 PS4 games and showing that most of them use P2P is a very time-consuming task. It's a very common and weak arguing tactic that never really works because most people recognize that the person is just being obstinate.

    When faced with the same level of obstinance for his own claim he immediately gave up on it rather than trying to find sources to defend it, which demonstrates how this technique works. Note though that even though it got him to stop arguing the point it isn't likely to change anyone's mind, it just stifles discussion, which is why I posted initially that I had no interest in having the discussion. I already knew it wouldn't lead anywhere useful and would just derail the topic.

    The fact of the matter is, most people clearly believe that even when you pay, most games are still peer to peer. If you seriously want to change people's minds you'll have to provide a long list of counterexamples, but even then there are so many peer-to-peer games that there's likely no list you could put together that couldn't be rivalled by an even bigger list of P2P games in a few minutes. Which is precisely why no one seriously contests that the original point is accurate.
    http://www.backloggery.com/tero - My backloggery
    http://whatliesbeyondnovel.blogspot.ca/ - A psychological fantasy novel series, book 2 finally complete
    (edited 1 day ago)reportquote
    Cozy 1 day ago#58
    The thing is, online is not free. Every country that I know of has some big companies that lay down the infrastructure and charge you to connect online at home. In Canada, it's Rogers and Bell, and we have some of the most expensive bills in the world.

    Mind you, I'm not defending Nintendo or any of the companies that do this, because it's another added charge, however minor these charges add up. But Internet is not free: it never has been a right, it's a commodity
    "Poop"
    NNID: CavemanCossy
    (edited 1 day ago)reportquote
    Still baffles me that consoles never get any credit for being pretty much cheat free. That's what I pay the subscription for.
    Alienshroom posted...
    Still baffles me that consoles never get any credit for being pretty much cheat free. That's what I pay the subscription for.
    That's because it doesn't stop from being jerks. Example, the Destiny Share Play Incident. Heck, Sony even confessed it themselves as a reason for lack of a name change feature. However, if you think it does, look into the VAC Ban.
    The Switch is not our future.
    nbean16 1 day ago#61
    The bickering between these two prepubescent kids shows exactly how stupid this website has become.
    n00bsaib0t 1 day ago#62
    TalesOfGod posted...
    - The original Xbox had games that would work online without paying for it

    The f***ing hell it did. Name one.

    s***, you couldn't even buy DLC on the OG Xbox without an Xbox Live (not Gold, it was just Xbox Live back then) subscription.
    Posted using GameFlux
    (edited 1 day ago)reportquote
    TalesOfGod posted...
    Steam had never needed for you to pay for online multiplayer and has been free all of this time.
    Even Origin (recognizing that it would be downright idiotic to make you pay for it), has made online multiplayer free on their service.

    Those are glorified stores, I don't know why people make such an idiotic comparison.
    Currently Playing :Persona 5 (PS4) and Kingdom Hearts 1.5 & 2.5 HD Remix (PS4)
    PS4Warrior 1 day ago#64
    Didn't you need to pay for the original Xbox live?

    Of course there is a reason for it. Money. They know people will pay for online.
    PS4 - Because it was the next gen console i was the most interested in.
    Warrior - Because i usually pick the Warrior class in MMORPGs when i played them.
    PS4Warrior posted...
    Didn't you need to pay for the original Xbox live?

    Of course there is a reason for it. Money. They know people will pay for online.
    The Steam users vs the number of PS+ members tells a different story. Heck, even the number of Steam users vs XBL premium members tells a different story as Steam passed the number of XBL users years ago.
    The Switch is not our future.
    Jinzo 111887 posted...
    PS4Warrior posted...
    Didn't you need to pay for the original Xbox live?

    Of course there is a reason for it. Money. They know people will pay for online.
    The Steam users vs the number of PS+ members tells a different story. Heck, even the number of Steam users vs XBL premium members tells a different story as Steam passed the number of XBL users years ago.

    Steam is a glorified digital store.
    Currently Playing :Persona 5 (PS4) and Kingdom Hearts 1.5 & 2.5 HD Remix (PS4)
    n00bsaib0t 1 day ago#67
    Maverick_Reznor posted...
    Jinzo 111887 posted...
    PS4Warrior posted...
    Didn't you need to pay for the original Xbox live?

    Of course there is a reason for it. Money. They know people will pay for online.
    The Steam users vs the number of PS+ members tells a different story. Heck, even the number of Steam users vs XBL premium members tells a different story as Steam passed the number of XBL users years ago.

    Steam is a digital store.

    Fix'd
    Posted using GameFlux
    PS4Warrior 1 day ago#68
    Jinzo 111887 posted...
    PS4Warrior posted...
    Didn't you need to pay for the original Xbox live?

    Of course there is a reason for it. Money. They know people will pay for online.
    The Steam users vs the number of PS+ members tells a different story. Heck, even the number of Steam users vs XBL premium members tells a different story as Steam passed the number of XBL users years ago.

    Lol that excuse again. People are still paying for it so obviously people will pay for online.
    PS4 - Because it was the next gen console i was the most interested in.
    Warrior - Because i usually pick the Warrior class in MMORPGs when i played them.
    Maverick_Reznor posted...
    Jinzo 111887 posted...
    PS4Warrior posted...
    Didn't you need to pay for the original Xbox live?

    Of course there is a reason for it. Money. They know people will pay for online.
    The Steam users vs the number of PS+ members tells a different story. Heck, even the number of Steam users vs XBL premium members tells a different story as Steam passed the number of XBL users years ago.

    Steam is a digital store.
    It was one, but it's evolved since then. Cloud storage, VAC secure servers that cheaters can get permabanned from, steam workshop support for games, and online multiplayer for many games all without a subscription fee for gamers to access.
    The Switch is not our future.
    PS4Warrior posted...
    Jinzo 111887 posted...
    PS4Warrior posted...
    Didn't you need to pay for the original Xbox live?

    Of course there is a reason for it. Money. They know people will pay for online.
    The Steam users vs the number of PS+ members tells a different story. Heck, even the number of Steam users vs XBL premium members tells a different story as Steam passed the number of XBL users years ago.

    Lol that excuse again. People are still paying for it so obviously people will pay for online.
    Not many as the number of Steam users there are right now, so yes, my point still stands.
    The Switch is not our future.
    PS4Warrior 1 day ago#71
    Jinzo 111887 posted...
    PS4Warrior posted...
    Jinzo 111887 posted...
    PS4Warrior posted...
    Didn't you need to pay for the original Xbox live?

    Of course there is a reason for it. Money. They know people will pay for online.
    The Steam users vs the number of PS+ members tells a different story. Heck, even the number of Steam users vs XBL premium members tells a different story as Steam passed the number of XBL users years ago.

    Lol that excuse again. People are still paying for it so obviously people will pay for online.
    Not many as the number of Steam users there are right now, so yes, my point still stands.

    You have no point. People are still paying for online.
    PS4 - Because it was the next gen console i was the most interested in.
    Warrior - Because i usually pick the Warrior class in MMORPGs when i played them.
    (edited 1 day ago)reportquote
    PS4Warrior posted...
    People are still paying for online.
    Are there as many PS+ subscribers as there are Steam users?
    The Switch is not our future.
    PS4Warrior 1 day ago#73
    Jinzo 111887 posted...
    PS4Warrior posted...
    People are still paying for online.
    Are there as many PS+ subscribers as there are Steam users?

    Doesn't matter. I said they know people will pay for online. Which they are. Stop trying to argue over nothing.
    PS4 - Because it was the next gen console i was the most interested in.
    Warrior - Because i usually pick the Warrior class in MMORPGs when i played them.
    Jinzo 111887 posted...
    PS4Warrior posted...
    People are still paying for online.
    Are there as many PS+ subscribers as there are Steam users?


    There are more gaming PC users than all console users combined. So, yea...there probably is more Steam users than PS+ users.
    (edited 1 day ago)reportquote
    TalesOfGod posted...
    - Steam had never needed for you to pay for online multiplayer and has been free all of this time.

    Steam requires a minimum purchase of $5 to unlock a bunch of stuff, though.
    https://support.steampowered.com/kb_article.php?ref=3330-IAGK-7663
    (edited 1 day ago)reportquote
    PS4Warrior posted...
    Jinzo 111887 posted...
    PS4Warrior posted...
    People are still paying for online.
    Are there as many PS+ subscribers as there are Steam users?

    Doesn't matter. I said they know people will pay for online. Which they are. Stop trying to argue over nothing.
    Don't want to admit the answer is "no" because it backs up what I said about the online paywall damaging the install base? For every one that is paying for PS+, there's more gamers that have chosen to game on PC instead because garbage like that, so Sony is losing revenue because they chose to turn off gamers.
    The Switch is not our future.
    PS4Warrior 1 day ago#77
    Jinzo 111887 posted...
    PS4Warrior posted...
    Jinzo 111887 posted...
    PS4Warrior posted...
    People are still paying for online.
    Are there as many PS+ subscribers as there are Steam users?

    Doesn't matter. I said they know people will pay for online. Which they are. Stop trying to argue over nothing.
    Don't want to admit the answer is "no" because it backs up what I said about the online paywall damaging the install base? For every one that is paying for PS+, there's more gamers that have chosen to game on PC instead because garbage like that, so Sony is losing revenue because they chose to turn off gamers.

    No because it doesn't matter. They charge for online because they know people will pay for online. 

    Which
    they
    are.

    Whether they would have more of an install base or not if they didn't charge for online isn't the point.
    PS4 - Because it was the next gen console i was the most interested in.
    Warrior - Because i usually pick the Warrior class in MMORPGs when i played them.
    n00bsaib0t 1 day ago#78
    Questionmarktarius posted...
    Steam requires a minimum purchase of $5 to unlock a bunch of stuff, though.

    Yes, you have to buy a game to use Steam. What's the big deal? You get to keep the game unlike GWG and PS+ and you get to choose the game.
    Posted using GameFlux
    PS4Warrior posted...
    No because it doesn't matter. They charge for online because they know people will pay for online. 

    Which
    they
    are.

    Whether they would have more of an install base or not if they didn't charge for online isn't the point.
    And many more aren't. Heck, even PC hardware sales from last year back it up.
    http://www.gamespot.com/articles/pc-gaming-hardware-revenue-hits-30-billion-in-2016/1100-6447141/
    How much did Sony make on PS4 hardware sales last year?
    The Switch is not our future.
    PS4Warrior 1 day ago#80
    Jinzo 111887 posted...
    PS4Warrior posted...
    No because it doesn't matter. They charge for online because they know people will pay for online. 

    Which
    they
    are.

    Whether they would have more of an install base or not if they didn't charge for online isn't the point.
    And many more aren't. Heck, even PC hardware sales from last year back it up.
    http://www.gamespot.com/articles/pc-gaming-hardware-revenue-hits-30-billion-in-2016/1100-6447141/
    How much did Sony make on PS4 hardware sales last year?

    Doesn't matter.
    PS4 - Because it was the next gen console i was the most interested in.
    Warrior - Because i usually pick the Warrior class in MMORPGs when i played them.
    PS4Warrior posted...
    Doesn't matter.
    Don't admit that either?
    The Switch is not our future.
    PS4Warrior 1 day ago#82
    Jinzo 111887 posted...
    PS4Warrior posted...
    Doesn't matter.
    Don't admit that either?

    No because it doesn't matter. They charge for online because they know people will pay for online.

    Which
    they
    are.

    Whether they would have more of an install base or not if they didn't charge for online isn't the point.
    PS4 - Because it was the next gen console i was the most interested in.
    Warrior - Because i usually pick the Warrior class in MMORPGs when i played them.
    PS4Warrior posted...
    No because it doesn't matter. They charge for online because they know people will pay for online.

    Which
    they
    are.

    Whether they would have more of an install base or not if they didn't charge for online isn't the point.
    And people are moving away from console gaming. The timing of Steam taking off and breakdown of PC hardware sales actually do a pretty good job at hinting it's the paywall. In other words, less potential sales on consoles because people are moving to PC gaming.
    The Switch is not our future.
    Capt-T 1 day ago#84
    It costs money to run and maintain servers...especially for millions of people. So to pay some to have friends lists, voice chat, game online, and other features, seems fair IMO.
    PS4Warrior 1 day ago#85
    Jinzo 111887 posted...
    PS4Warrior posted...
    No because it doesn't matter. They charge for online because they know people will pay for online.

    Which
    they
    are.

    Whether they would have more of an install base or not if they didn't charge for online isn't the point.
    And people are moving away from console gaming. The timing of Steam taking off and breakdown of PC hardware sales actually do a pretty good job at hinting it's the paywall. In other words, less potential sales on consoles because people are moving to PC gaming.

    That literally doesn't matter. 

    People are still paying for online. They know people will pay for online. I'm saying one thing and you're using that to try and shift the conversation to argue about something completely different.
    PS4 - Because it was the next gen console i was the most interested in.
    Warrior - Because i usually pick the Warrior class in MMORPGs when i played them.
    Cozy 1 day ago#86
    It's sad that now there have been two pointless arguments about what kind of facts and evidence matter in arguments. Don't bicker like old farts.

    If you think that is bulls***, and really are averse to paying an extra cost when you are already paying for a home network (and by you, I mean you are paying for internet and not your parents), then don't pay for it. Online is overhyped anyway, local multi-player is the best way to go, but well that's just my opinion.
    "Poop"
    NNID: CavemanCossy
    Capt-T posted...
    It costs money to run and maintain servers...especially for millions of people. So to pay some to have friends lists, voice chat, game online, and other features, seems fair IMO.
    Voice chat has nothing to do with making online multiplayer possible. Servers are covered by developers with the purchase of the game. The other stuff Valve's shown is possible to be offered without the need of a paywall. Unrelated features aren't a good reason for the online multiplayer paywall.

    PS4Warrior posted...
    People are still paying for online. They know people will pay for online. I'm saying one thing and you're using that to try and shift the conversation to argue about something completely different.
    And yet, the bigger market tends to be the one that doesn't charge for online multiplayer, which is what I'm saying. They're pushing many gamers away from their systems. Heck, some people are even getting fed up with the paywall and moving away from the PS4.
    The Switch is not our future.
    PS4Warrior 1 day ago#88
    Jinzo 111887 posted...
    Capt-T posted...
    It costs money to run and maintain servers...especially for millions of people. So to pay some to have friends lists, voice chat, game online, and other features, seems fair IMO.
    Voice chat has nothing to do with making online multiplayer possible. Servers are covered by developers with the purchase of the game. The other stuff Valve's shown is possible to be offered without the need of a paywall. Unrelated features aren't a good reason for the online multiplayer paywall.

    PS4Warrior posted...
    People are still paying for online. They know people will pay for online. I'm saying one thing and you're using that to try and shift the conversation to argue about something completely different.
    And yet, the bigger market tends to be the one that doesn't charge for online multiplayer, which is what I'm saying. They're pushing many gamers away from their systems. Heck, some people are even getting fed up with the paywall and moving away from the PS4.


    That may or may not be true. But it doesn't have anything to do with what i said. I was only answering the topic of why they're charging for online. Like Mario, your argument is in another topic.
    PS4 - Because it was the next gen console i was the most interested in.
    Warrior - Because i usually pick the Warrior class in MMORPGs when i played them.
    ikki5 1 day ago#89
    @slyman19 posted...
    Terotrous posted...
    slyman19 posted...
    Sorry, but you need to provide evidence at this point.

    I don't need to provide evidence, because no one other than you seriously questions that this is the case, and I don't care whether you specifically believe it to be true or not.

    Evidence is only necessary when attempting to support opinions that are not trivially obvious.

    Incorrect. 

    Evidence is needed. You're throwing out random percentages. The burden of proof is solely on you at this point. 

    The fact that you weren't aware of Microsoft exclusives having dedicated servers calls into question the validity of any of your claims.


    Actually, the evidence that they will not be using p2p connections but instead something more dedicated is on you. We would be the ones paying for the service and therefore, we need to be shown that it is actually going to be worrh it. It is already well known that the PS4 and XBox use p2p connections with the exceptions of a few games. It needs to be proven that Nintendo will not follow the same idea.
    Toadette, most adorable Nintendo character! | PSN - JSampG / NNID - Sampsonj |
    "Give me proof but not that link that proves it!"(paraphrase) - Baha05
    PS4Warrior posted...
    That may or may not be true. But it doesn't have anything to do with what i said. I was only answering the topic of why they're charging for online. Like Mario, your argument is in another topic.
    Like the summary of the opening post says, "There is no logical reason why you should need to pay for online multiplayer on any console or handheld." There isn't a good reason for it that's beneficial to all parties involved. Even if extra bells and whistles are added, that would justify the extra bells and whistles being behind the paywall instead. Now, there might be some people who pay for it, but I'm trying hard not to insult them. Yes, there is a word I am tempted to call them, but I'm trying to reframe from doing so. What I'm trying to point out is that seems to be doing more harm than good for console makers based on things like the Steam install base and breakdown of last year's Gaming PC hardware sales.
    In other words, they think they can get away with it, but they aren't noticing what's going on with PC gaming.
    The Switch is not our future.
    PS4Warrior 22 hours ago#91
    Jinzo 111887 posted...
    PS4Warrior posted...
    That may or may not be true. But it doesn't have anything to do with what i said. I was only answering the topic of why they're charging for online. Like Mario, your argument is in another topic.
    Like the summary of the opening post says, "There is no logical reason why you should need to pay for online multiplayer on any console or handheld." There isn't a good reason for it that's beneficial to all parties involved. Even if extra bells and whistles are added, that would justify the extra bells and whistles being behind the paywall instead. Now, there might be some people who pay for it, but I'm trying hard not to insult them. Yes, there is a word I am tempted to call them, but I'm trying to reframe from doing so. What I'm trying to point out is that seems to be doing more harm than good for console makers based on things like the Steam install base and breakdown of last year's Gaming PC hardware sales.
    In other words, they think they can get away with it, but they aren't noticing what's going on with PC gaming.


    I never said it was a good reason, i just gave a reason why they have paid online.
    PS4 - Because it was the next gen console i was the most interested in.
    Warrior - Because i usually pick the Warrior class in MMORPGs when i played them.
    Capt-T 21 hours ago#92
    Jinzo 111887 posted...
    Capt-T posted...
    It costs money to run and maintain servers...especially for millions of people. So to pay some to have friends lists, voice chat, game online, and other features, seems fair IMO.
    Voice chat has nothing to do with making online multiplayer possible. Servers are covered by developers with the purchase of the game. The other stuff Valve's shown is possible to be offered without the need of a paywall. Unrelated features aren't a good reason for the online multiplayer paywall.

    PS4Warrior posted...
    People are still paying for online. They know people will pay for online. I'm saying one thing and you're using that to try and shift the conversation to argue about something completely different.
    And yet, the bigger market tends to be the one that doesn't charge for online multiplayer, which is what I'm saying. They're pushing many gamers away from their systems. Heck, some people are even getting fed up with the paywall and moving away from the PS4.



    Still cost them money to maintain the servers for all the 'added features' including but not limited to voice/parties, friends list, nintendo's game servers. You may not want to pay for it, but it still costs money. Even your "free" for you on PC servers cost money, you just pay for it in a different way. Be it ads, or an up charge on the games you buy through the service you use.
    supermichael11 17 hours ago#93
    Basically here is how it going on with Online:

    Console
    PS4
    Xbox One
    Nintendo Switch

    They all require for the user to pay for online, meaning all console require paying to play online, there is no more console without paying for online

    Handheld
    Nintendo 3DS
    PS Vita

    Those are Handheld which doesn't require any paying to play online

    PC

    PC has been around longer than Sony and Xbox even existed and has remained free, without changing to paying.


    So basically all the new consoles has turned into paying to play online, while PC and the handhelds are free to play online.
    http://www.neoseeker.com/forums/88/ dragon ball forum
    http://midnighttavern.forumotion.com/ Must be over 18 years old to join.
    stekim40 17 hours ago#94
    If no Switch owners pay for this, it will die off very fast.. and it will return to being free.

    Sadly so many console users lack the willpower to do this or the intellect to understand it.
    Sold my Nintendo Switch and bought a 'GPD XD' Handheld instead, best move ever!
    (edited 17 hours ago)reportquote
    ZeldaTPLink 16 hours ago#95
    If Nintendo doesn't charge for online, you'll pay for it as part of the console's price.

    Nothing is free.
    Jinzo 111887 13 hours ago#96
    Capt-T posted...
    Still cost them money to maintain the servers for all the 'added features' including but not limited to voice/parties, friends list, nintendo's game servers. You may not want to pay for it, but it still costs money. Even your "free" for you on PC servers cost money, you just pay for it in a different way. Be it ads, or an up charge on the games you buy through the service you use.
    That only justifies them putting the new features behind the paywall, not online multiplayer. As for the servers, many third party developers are able to offer online multiplayer without a paywall. Example, EA. My guess is it's actually factored into the price of the game.
    The Switch is not our future.
    supermichael11 13 hours ago#97
    Online pay became a thing because Xbox 360 was successful, had people chosen PS3 and Wii while not buying Xbox 360 or not getting Xbox 360 online multiplay then online could of continued to be free.

    Xbox 360 success meant Sony went online pay with their PS4. Xbox One and PS4 success in online pay means Nintendo went into online pay.


    It is the consumers faults for supporting online pay. Only 1 company was doing online pay, yet people went to that company and chose to buy online pay subscription.


    Now all 3 companies are doing online pay.
    http://www.neoseeker.com/forums/88/ dragon ball forum
    http://midnighttavern.forumotion.com/ Must be over 18 years old to join.
    -Lo- 13 hours ago#98
    TalesOfGod posted...
    MlREFOX posted...
    There is a reason, and it is called profit. Even if you think corporations should exist just to make you happy, they really exist just to make money.


    Exactly. 
    They introduced it for the sole purpose of making more money and not that the service got any better.


    The PC crowd got it right when they said "f*** you" to MS. If we just went a few months not paying for it, they would remove the model. Developers depend on traffic for their multiplayer titles and if there's none, they will push the host to remove any obstacles.
    My donkey fell in your waffle hole
    RS_YELARAKA 12 hours ago#99
    only excuses now because its nintendo.
    [RSG] Red Screen Gaming
    XB1/N3DS/SWITCH
    Splatdude431 11 hours ago#100
    ZeldaTPLink posted...
    If Nintendo doesn't charge for online, you'll pay for it as part of the console's price.

    Nothing is free.


    And I would be OK with this.

    That's assuming the online is provided by the console makers and not the creators of the games. Which is not the case. The creators of a game manage the online for the game and not the console makers

    Still this would be loads better than putting the online for every game behind the paywall the console makers put up.
    (edited 11 hours ago)reportquote
    1. Boards
    2. Nintendo Switch
    3. Don't make excuses for online multiplayer

No comments:

Post a Comment

Public Comments