Paid online

Paid online.

>90$ HDMI converter

Starting 2018

$20 a year

>Price subject to change

20$ a year isnt much, especially when compared te the ps4 and xbone, but paid online is still fucking retarded. thanks for popularizing this retarded buisness scheme to make extra money and inspire sony and nintendo to do the same thing.

>paid online is still fucking retarded
why?

32GB of internal storage.

>playing Nintendo games online

$10 a year?

>too poor to afford $20 a year to be able to play the GOAT console online
My condolences

Because it shouldn't be paid and it doesn't accomplish anything but to provide more money for your company Im happy that Nintendo made it cheap, but it shouldn't be paid

user just because I don't want to throw money at something that should be free doesn't mean I'm poor. I just have decent sense.

You're not paying for their servers because it's all P2P, and you're not paying for the actual connection because that's on your ISP. You're giving them money for literally nothing in return.

>play splatoon 2
>can't team up with my friend on turf wars
>can't team up with my friend on ranked
>can't team up with my friend on splatfests
I mean, while I don't like paid online, I could have put up with $20 a year. Guess there actually isn't any reason for me to since Nintendo doesn't even make online worth playing to begin with.

>sm4sh
>mario kart
>splatoon
>Pokken

>You're giving them money for literally nothing in return.
How is this any different than any other Nintendo product?

i wish i waited with posting

All better in local multiplayer desu

>Because it shouldn't be paid and it doesn't accomplish anything

how so?

Only outrageous when nintendo does it

>it's all P2P
There's still infrastructure needed to set P2P up. They may not host dedicated servers, but there still needs to be matchmaking and general maintenance and so on.

Let's be realistic here, the price is not going to jump from $20 to $60. That would not go over well, at all.

I can't wait for steam to do this
And don't say they won't, because NO ONE thought Nintendo would have paid online, NO ONE thought the ps4 would have paid online after the ps3 had free online it's whole time alive and still does today.

Hey, everyone wanted nintendo to play catch up to the competition, so here it is.

but 20 to 30, then 30 to 40, then 40 to 50. You stupid niggers will defend anything Nintendo does.

they won't and nintendo online is cheap af.

Also PC online lacks the community from PSN or particularly XBL not to mention the free games

That wasn't the point.

>All better in local multiplayer desu
>mario kart 8
Yeah, fuck no. I sold that shit within a week of buying it due to trying to play it with a friend. Fuckers really need to include horizontal split screen if I'm ever going to think about touching one of their kart games again. Until then all I can do is emulate MK DD.

apparently its only ok when Sony does it

Well we'll cross that bridge when we come to it. That is if we ever come to it, FOOL!

calm down, okay?

They will

Better question is, how many will still pay to play multiplayer games.

Just like consoles, f2p isn't affected, but all multiplayer is pay to play online sub.

Who is still in and would you abandon steam if so?

The fact that you now have paid online is proof enough that that bridge is coming sooner than you'd think. But go ahead and bury your head in the sand and say "It will never happen"

>playing Nintendo games online
Actually yes, that was user's point.

Automatic "no buy" for me.

no, they won't

>paid online
>Online is worse than the online systems we had for free 11 years ago

this is the real problem.

>muh slippery slope

I'm not having any issues with mine

We're crossing the paid online bridge right now and all you nintendo shills are defending it.

>implying I play online on console much less pay for it
Check mate OP

The sad thing is, that's what people here think. And they still believe Sony is some pro-consumer hero when they've done just about everything Microsoft has. The only thing Sup Forums has to hold onto is the idea that Sony would never ever think of taking away their freedom to play used games.

Until that freedom goes away too, and then it's "b-b-but muh weeb games!" as a last ditch argument for supporting them.

>PC online lacks the community from PSN
The community is there, but just more fragmented.

>not to mention the free games
Steam has free games.

People like to brag about other sites like GoG, but realistically Steam has no direct competition. Look at paid mods. It is only a matter of time until Steam jumps on the paid online bandwagon.

Welcome to the club.

>yes you can just won't always be on their team
>you can play with 1 or 3 friends on the same team always
>if you have 3 friends you can
I mean it could be a lot better but don't straight up lie

The whole idea of "we'll cross that bridge when we come to it" is we'll deal with it when it actually happens. The idea isn't "well this one thing happened so every conceivable awful thing in the world must therefor happen".

In other words, we'll worry about them raising the price of paid online when it actually happens, if it actually happens

>muh slippery slope
Something can't be a fallacy if there is empirical data to support it.

But you defend paid online itself. You'd defend the price being raised to 30 too "Well, it's only 10 dollars extra"

>The community is there
nah

>Steam has free games.
But not games for free.

What you can't afford $10? Are you homeless?

You're putting words in my mouth. Just fuck off already.

>The only thing Sup Forums has to hold onto is the idea that Sony would never ever think of taking away their freedom to play used games.
Actually it was already in the works until M$ received all that backlash, so they scrapped the idea and instead insulted M$ for big bragging rights.

It doesn't even have basic features built in to the system. That's how it's more than a decade behind everyone else and still behind free services.

>there is empirical data
oh cool where

>free games*
*rentals

>Got a Switch on day 1
>Played Zelda
>Will play Mario too
>No other games really interest me
>"Free trial" of paid online going completely to waste
>Won't pay for it in the future
I guess I don't care.

>It doesn't even have basic features built in to the system.
if by basic you mean unnecessary then sure

I didn't have a problem with it, I think it's the best way. I agree they should give you the choice though.

Oh yeah, I forgot about that.

>Voice chat is unnecessary

It is in an online system that charges you money to use it.

>nintenbros are already preparing to defend this trash

Free online.

>It´s ok cause is almost no money
A whore is a whore, doesn´t matter how much she charges for it.

It doesn't even have shit the vita does for online.

I'm in the same boat. Unless the NES games with online take off in a big way I can live without it.
Unless Animal Crossing makes good use of online, then I'll probably crumble.

The thing is, I still don't defend paid online, and I never will. I hated the idea of it then, I hate the idea of it now.

I don't understand how so many people have this idea that if you can afford something then you should be ok with paying for it. It's like if I were to just demand £5 from someone and if they so no I just say "what, you can't afford £5! Get a fucking job!"

>tfw you realize all the retards who buy TF2 hats and CSGO/DOTA cosmetics have been paying for steam's online infrastructure costs so you don't gotta pay for online

Joining the same game as a friend is NOT the same as teaming up with them. This is aggravated by the fact that 9 out of 10 times they seem to purposely put you on opposite teams. That may be based on personal data, but it isn't over exaggeration. In the last 50 games I played with my friend, we were on the same team 6 times.

>you can play with 1 or 3 friends on the same team always
This is only for league. Did you see me mention league? If you want to call me a liar, don't lie your ass off yourself.

>if you have 3 friends you can
I don't have 3 friends to play with. I specifically said "friend", not "friends". This is a non-issue in just about any other multiplayer game in existence. Why do you defend it in Splatoon 2? Because it is a Nintendo game and you are a blind fanboy?


>select all images with bridges
>only one image has a bridge
>won't accept only 1 image selected
Fuck you too captcha...

It's just aimed more at trying to shame people who are criticizing the company they are staking too much of their personal identity to.

We see people doing it here for Nintendo, they did it there for sony, and people did it for microsoft.

they know it's bad but they can't accept the criticism of the company without taking it personally so they try to insult and shame people who level the criticism.

Simply follow the blues clues to solve the riddle

I have a handful of games on steam that I got for free. I don't need to pay a subscription to keep them either.

I have even more on origin

>>Voice chat is unnecessary

yup, just use your phone?

Netcode and such has been no better for PS4 since having paid online and they still suffer issues

Nah, it was free before hats.

>Having to use another device to do something even other handhelds offered for free with their FREE online
>But pay for it.

Nope.

I have yet to hear a good argument against it other than "WAAAAAAAH I HATE PAYING MONEY WAAAAAAAA"

Grow up, children.

But steam's userbase has expanded tremendously since hats became a thing

That's Sony's fault lol

What other argument do you need? It is something that should be free and you are not only paying for it but defending it.

That and the 30% off every sale made on Steam ever.
>Coud saves for every game as long as the developer enables it
>Screenshot storage
>Speeds high enough to max out 99% of internet connections
>Can change your name
All for the low, low price of free.

>It is something that should be free

why?

>M$ starts paid online
>Sony joins in down the road
>Nintendo joins in down the road
Do you not know what empirical data is user? Paid online is a growing trend, and it has reached every single gaming platform besides PC. Maybe Steam will be the ones to stop the trend. Maybe not. Either way, there is empirical data showing that there is a reasonable possibility that they will start using paid online.

So? PC games have always had free online.

Industry standards defined what should and should constitute a paid service and their service does not meet the criteria due to a failure to deliver features that were standard even in free services before.

>Sony and MS started paid online
>this is evidence that Nintendo will raise the price on theirs
that's not how it works, kiddo

It's free on PC so I can just take my business elsewhere. Anyone bending over and taking this is a fool of the highest caliber.

Heads up, dude, their service is also over 50% cheaper

>I didn't have a problem with it, I think it's the best way.
Yeah, unlike your usual Sup Forums crowd, I understand that some people prefer things in a way that you may not, so I was careful not to say that they need to change it back, but rather that they should include it as an option. Fuck all these selfish people that think things shouldn't be changed to benefit both sets of people.

PC isn't portable nor does it play Nintendo first parties reliably lol

You don't understand what I'm saying. It was free back in the day because Steam made enough money from game sales to support their relatively small userbase. But now Steam has millions more users all downloading games, streaming games, and playing games online (many of them free). All those microtransactions people hate so much support the whole ecosystem and keep it free.

Physical DLC.

Hahahaha

>why?
Because they are using YOUR internet connection, that YOU pay for, to host THEIR game, that YOU paid for as well.

inb4
>but but matchmaking servers cost tons of monies
I paid the game you fucking kike. And PS2 Sony was able to host their actual dedicated SOCOM servers for 10 years. Hell, on PC you get dedicated servers everywhere by simply buying the fucking game.

Unless of course Nintendo is now giving away their games for free. Then it would be fine.

Valve has had no issues and their online is the best

nice argument lol

Not an argument

It would be free regardless because PC players have to much class to pay for online.

50% cheaper than full standard services but still failing to provide shit that free services saw as standard isn't a good deal. You are paying for less than you used to get for free.

>Because they are using YOUR internet connection, that YOU pay for, to host THEIR game, that YOU paid for as well.

But it still requires infrastructure and maintenance on their part to maintain functionality.

If it was entirely P2P, then how could it go down at all?