-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
Animal Crossing: Pocket Camp is introducing a paid membership service
- Thread starter ZeoVGM
- Start date
Huh. Maybe the MKT subscription is actually generating decent revenue? Nintendo's mobile practices are shameful. Feels uncharacteristically dirty for Nintendo. It's like mobile Nintendo and Switch Nintendo are two completely separate companies.
I've played this game since November 2017, been through the up's and down's then basically said fuck it a few months ago. Nintendo has a bunch of oddball ideas they try to swing by people, recycled events and reskinned shit. This is just lol.
I played this religiously when it first launched. There were one or two events where the mechanics were REALLY tight and close to making you fail. (And hilariously, unable to spend money to actually complete it)
But they eventually broke my hard-and-fast F2P game rule, and ran two events at the same time. They did some Google Play exclusive flower event on top of a fishing event.
That's when I said "Fuck it", uninstalled it right there and have been happy ever since.
Once a game decides that they're going to squeeze you out of ALL of your free time and make it the ONLY game you have time to play, then I leave.
But they eventually broke my hard-and-fast F2P game rule, and ran two events at the same time. They did some Google Play exclusive flower event on top of a fishing event.
That's when I said "Fuck it", uninstalled it right there and have been happy ever since.
Once a game decides that they're going to squeeze you out of ALL of your free time and make it the ONLY game you have time to play, then I leave.
I'm getting a new phone next month and was thinking about what games I can start come back to playing since I'm losing space on my current one.
Pocket Camp was on the list to come back to my phone, but now probably not if I'm required to pay a fee now.
Pocket Camp was on the list to come back to my phone, but now probably not if I'm required to pay a fee now.
Honestly if they dropped the gotcha, subs would align much better with how mobile operates. Mobile games are services and subs mean there is reasonable capped spending for the content. It's fair to the consumer and it's viable unlike pay-once. Maybe in the future they can wrap it up into a multi-game service that comprises their mobile revenue.
This had best not hold any sway over New Horizons. Keep this trash millions of miles away from my mainline Animal Crossing. Nothing that even resembles it. Nothing that can be carried over or transferred.
NOTHING!
NOTHING!
OP
OP
Pocket Camp is already a loot box-driven game and the in-game currency is very expensive.
And the subscription service let's you by-pass that process alltogether. Like in Mario Kart Tour. How is that a bad thing that a subscription option exists?
Fire Emblem Heroes taught them the power of gacha, and now Mario Kart Tour the oower of subs. I don't think anyone saw this coming really, but I'm kinda glad Nintendo is quarantining these practices to their mobile offerings. Would I have prefrred stuff like Mario Kart Run, premium one-purchase off shoots of their IPs with unique mobile gaming? Certainly. But let them experiment here and find alternative revenue methods here instead of butchering their bread and butter.
OP
OP
Except that isn't how it works in Mario Kart Tour at all.
And there is no reason to believe this subscription will let you "bypass loot boxes all together." It almost certainly will not.
You seem to be blindly defending something you know nothing about.
Pay for a helper so they can help you finish all that nothing you've been putting off doing in Pocket Camp.
Nintendo sectioned off their online behind a paid subscription, and chances are (or is it confirmed yet?) they'll be charging for Pokemon Home, for features that previously were just part of the game itself.
They're in no way quarantining this to their mobile games.
I'm just asking why this is a bad thing. I'd like to have an answer before I make an opinion. So what exactly does the Subscription in Tour do then?
Online Sub is something that can be attributed to MS/Sony already implementing it years ago, and Pokemon Home would not be a direct decision by Nintendo. That one is Gamefreak and TPC.
You can make the argument for Home not being Nintendo if you want, even I'm not sure it matters when it's still a Nintendo IP with a subscription at the end of the day, but I'm not at all sure how other companies charging for online has any effect on the fact that Nintendo are also doing it.
Like, if they bring out Splatoon 3 with a monthly battlepass, I doubt you'd be saying "yeah, but that can be attributed to Fortnite already implementing it years ago".
For a company that is 15 years late when it comes to online infrastructures, they quickly grasped the concept of paywalls.
OP
OP
... so you seriously had no idea what the sub in Tour does before you used it to defend this?
Man, people will blindly defend anything.
In theory a subscription would be a more acceptable way to monetize a mobile game. That's why used Tour as an example. You'd think it'd be preferable to micro-transactions.
I was never really outright defending this decision. At the begining, I asked
Because I wanted somebody to explain why this was a problem. But people still have yet to explain why this is a bad thing.
And this is why I keep saying that people who praise Nintendo for their consumer friendly DLC are just gullible. Nintendo is always purposefully behind the curve or actually struggling to play catchup with the rest of the industry, business-wise. We've already seen how it went from great DLCs first to how now all their major releases seem to have "Expansion Pass" and I really think Nintendo is just doing the good old "squeeze milk out one tap at a time." thing. They're no more consumer-friendly than when Sony introduced an extremely generous "PlayStation Plus" model in the PS3 days and purposefully made it more expensive and a paid requirement for online come PS4.
But they're still somewhat "blue ocean". It just seems recently they've squeezed the arm a bit harder. The Game Vouchers aren't a ripoff but you can't deny it's an expensive deal to make in a sense, and that I feel is a relatively new sign of Nintendo with $$$ in their eyes. I would argue in the Wii/DS era their $$$ just came to them with the sheer success of the hardware and its pitch. Recent initiatives seem more obviously like a "We want your money" sign.
Which are usually $20 or so and come with a good amount of content for the price. There's rarely any "Day 1" DLC either, as the expansions usually start development AFTER the base game is completed. Nintendo is still good with DLC, don't see why their method of doing it is bad when the worst its gotten was overpriced Fire Emblem DLC.