Just wanna say I agree. Makes no sense that the cost of a game determines whether the online is free. Especially now when games which aren’t free can also have MTX. Either online should be free or it shouldn’t. I’d hoped that Nintendo was only charging for their own online games (which would have also made some sense), but this weird in-between always seemed odd to me.
Always made me laugh that the games you pay for require another payment to play online but the ones you don't are free. YET they're all mostly using the same server setup, imo charging for online play is a joke, especially since 99% of games will be peer to peer on console. If anything Fortnite is going to cost the most with regards to upkeep because of the mass amount of servers they'll be using yet it's free to play online. Shit makes no sense.
This. Why does one type of business model get an advantage over the other? Right now, as soon as you charge a dollar for your game upfront, it suddenly costs everyone an additional $20 a year to play online. That doesn't make any sense to me.
It's a mobile F2P title with lots of timers and energy meters and loot boxes etc. It's weird and lacks all the charm of the original game
not really the topic of this particular thread in fact the point of this thread is that you don't need to pay $20/year for the games listed in the OP
Seeing as platform holders don't actually pay any of these subscription revenues back to the devs, the amount it costs to run the server is completely irrelevent anyway. The dev is fulling funding the cost of running a server, whether or not a subscription is required.
The entire business model of free to play games is to get as many players as possible to increase the potential sales of micro transactions. To lock these games behind the paywall would be dumb as fuck, decreasing those players and micro transaction purchases and in turn reducing the amount of F2P game developers willing to launch on the system. The success (or not) of current switch F2P games like Fortnite and Paladins will directly influence what other F2P games come to the system (or not) in the future. To lock these games behind the paywall would be to hamstring this potential. Not to mention F2P/GaaS games are much more able to fund their own server costs and updates etc than a standard £40/$60 game. Yes I know Xbox do it but future support is less an issue for them and I still think it’s dumb as fuck.
You don't have to pay to play though - only pay to play online. If the game is offline only, you can play it without a sub, and if it has offline modes, you can play them without a sub. It's only really online-only F2P games that exist in 2 circles of the Venn diagram that this applies to. I'll be honest, as much as I'd love all online to be free, I agree on this. Logically, I think it makes more sense that all online play is behind the paywall, without any arbitrary distinctions. I do get however that consumers benefit more from Sony's (and possibly Nintendo's) stance.
With Fortnite being so big at the moment, I truly wonder if Nintendo plan to add any fine print. I'm not sure how many are playing on Switch but it's surely a EDIT: surely a lot of people
Nintendo is more of a global brand than Xbox if Nintendo had voice chat and party in the OS as well as the new releasing Cod day 1 I think they could solidify themselves as the main second console overtime if they release along side the new Xbox and PlayStation. Maybe a upgraded Switch Like how everyone is always Xbox vs PlayStation it could go back to it mostly being about Nintendo vs PlayStation
Microsoft has been amazing since their horrible launch except for this not changing. They need to change it ASAP and good work by Nintendo
Good, as it should be. I hope this stays this way, if both Nintendo and Sony stay with this, it makes for an interesting dynamic between all 3 console makers.
It will forever stay Xbox vs Playstation even if Nintendo breaks 100 million with the Switch as they intend to, they're way to different and not really in the same race.
This doesn't necessarily mean paid online won't be required for these games. For games with cost, the disclaimer is needed to prevent people from spending money and not getting what they thought they were paying for. With free-to-play games, there is no out-of-pocket expense and therefore no risk of refund demands. I think it would be best to wait and see. You can never really be sure what Nintendo are thinking. (I agree that this is promising, though. Especially since Paladins does have a paid version. Oh, actually... Does the paid Paladins version have an Online Service disclaimer? I don't have my Switch here to look.)
Because they’ve repeatedly stated that not all online games would require the paid online and some of their wording made a point of saying Nintendo online games.
Might are well put Netflix, Hulu behind a paywall. For all the yelling some of us so about anti consumer policies, I think we shouldn't question the pro consumer ones. F2P should be F2P across the board, not F2P, unless it's online MP then it's technically not F2P.
The reason I specifically dislike this policy is that it artificially tips the scales in favor of F2P games, encouraging publishers to make more Free To Play titles—and fewer traditional "pay once" titles—than they otherwise would. Maybe some people like that, but I think Free To Play is actually more anti-consumer in the long run, encouraging predatory practices like Lootboxes and moving the focus away from "Games are designed to create the best experience possible" in favor of "Games are designed to extract as much money as possible, while being engaging enough to attract new players and retain old ones."
A good move if it turns out to be true. Making F2P entry fee as low as possible is good for the business in general. People tend to spend much more on micro transactions if they stick with these games.
We saw this more openly back during the previous generation... I can remember both EA and Ubisoft commenting about it... one a major reasons third parties were pushing for a Xbox Live like paywalls on the other consoles was because of simple standard accounting practices. When money is collected for a service, that money can only be claimed as revenue as the service is performed. Without a paywall, revenue from the actual game sale was being deferred over many quarters to cover the online services. With a paywall, game sales revenue could be claimed immediately because service costs were being covered elsewhere. In theory, it shouldn't have mattered one way or the other, but in practice publishers liked being able to claim huge profits after Christmas. If this is still a factor, then it would make sense why F2P games wouldn't be effected. There is no need for deferment as service costs can spread across short-term items, like Battle Passes. Not really. There has always been a balance between "best experience" and "as much money" long before F2P games were a thing. Street Fighter II, CE, Turbo, Super, Super Turbo, and Super Turbo Ultimate EX HD were not made with just "the best experience" in mind. The key has always been to find a means to get more money by means that the consumer is conformable with. There are companies that have done it well and those that have done it poorly. F2P games are not inherently any different. ResetGAF just has a new word they like to use every time someone doesn't personally like something that costs money.
Nintendo is pluggin the hell outta Fortnite... I wonder if Nintendo would risk putting it behind the Nintendo Online sevice in the future
It could easily be that they haven't gotten around to having eShop games update their game pages for it yet, as they have other issues with the way games are presented on the eShop. Some pre-order deals on the eShop still aren't labeled as deals, so they just change the MSRP and hope those browsing the eShop figure out that it's a sale price, not MSRP.
It's based on the mobile version of the game, and it loses like ALL of the charm the original game had.
As it should be for games called free to play. Other than that is as some like to say, anti consumer.
This is my gripe. If I'm forced to pay already for online gaming in my paid-games, the juxtaposition between that and f2p not requiring online fee takes some strange leaps in logic. As someone who plays a lot of online games and not only f2p variety, it'll never be a noteworthy get. Probably awesome for those that only like f2p titles though.
Free 2 Play * if you pay us extra to have the right to play it for free online mwahahahahaahhaha Nah brah... free is free
Not sure what that would have to do with Nintendo's revenue from online subs. They could require it for all online play if they wanted. They probably just don't want to magnify the issues with their lacking service by doing that right now.
This exploded out of proportion. It is on every nintendo gaming news website. Hopefully it will be true otherwise :)
