Anyone think there should be fewer features locked behind Nintendo Online?

[daringred_]

I think your missing the point of what I'm saying. Nintendo provides a service. It makes them money to pay for resources they need to provide us FREE dlc that we don't necessarily deserve. I mean again it's a cheap service. And again you don't have to buy it. It's just a service to persuade you to play online.

i think you're missing the point, actually. the game -- and by proxy the dlc -- isn't a service, it's a product, and it's a product that i paid for with my own money. would i have in the knowledge that the game was seriously lacking and borderline incomplete? no, probably not, and adding in features that should have already been in the base game without charging me an additional cost is exactly what they should be doing. now we could argue whether or not you think the game wasn't finished at launch (since i know from another thread you think it was) but that's not what OP asked so let's not.

you think the NSO paywall is fine? good, i'm glad you're satisfied with it. i personally think the cost is roughly decent for the terrible service it provides. as someone who primarily uses the online for occasional trades and the pattern kiosk, it gets the job done, but it's nowhere close to being a decent service.

should the dream suite be locked behind it? no. aside from being something you can still do for free in new leaf, it's also a watered down version of playing online. for me, at least, it then makes sense that the cost to do so shouldn't be there. (unless it's definitively impossible to do so without using the service.) you don't expect to pay the same price for the same product when they are drastically different in quality. (i.e. visiting a town vs. dreaming of a town.) so that's how i feel about that. you're free to disagree, of course.

 

[niko2]

Animal crossing online does suck but the subscription is 20 dollars a year, less than two bucks a month...

 

[Cosmic-chan]

No I didn't because I stated something about Smash in my post above. They never did anything new from what Smash4 did and somehow managed to make changes that were worst.

I mean I hardly play smash so idk but can talk about how smash has paid dlc and nobody complains about paying for paid dlc on top of the NSO service but somehow it's a problem with Acnh even though 99.99 % of the dlc is free..

 

[-Blue-]

I mean I hardly play smash so idk but can talk about how smash has paid dlc and nobody complains about paying for paid dlc on top of the NSO service but somehow it's a problem with Acnh even though 99.99 % of the dlc is free..

I never pay for the costumes. Those were free on Smash4. I only ever paid for the fighter passes. Because they were new. If NH were to add something wild and new like a fighter pass I would consider paying for it.

 

[Cosmic-chan]

I never pay for the costumes. Those were free on Smash4. I only ever paid for the fighter passes. Because they were new. If NH were to add something wild and new like a fighter pass I would consider paying for it.

I mean I don't mind paying for really anything. Lmao I buy all the dumb costumes of smash and the NSO membership but I guess I have hard time understanding why someone is again complaining about the world's cheapest online service. Yeah it's not great but again Nintendo is trying to keep up with the gaming community..

Post automatically merged: Jul 29, 2020

i think you're missing the point, actually. the game -- and by proxy the dlc -- isn't a service, it's a product, and it's a product that i paid for with my own money. would i have in the knowledge that the game was seriously lacking and borderline incomplete? no, probably not, and adding in features that should have already been in the base game without charging me an additional cost is exactly what they should be doing. now we could argue whether or not you think the game wasn't finished at launch (since i know from another thread you think it was) but that's not what OP asked so let's not.

you think the NSO paywall is fine? good, i'm glad you're satisfied with it. i personally think the cost is roughly decent for the terrible service it provides. as someone who primarily uses the online for occasional trades and the pattern kiosk, it gets the job done, but it's nowhere close to being a decent service.

should the dream suite be locked behind it? no. aside from being something you can still do for free in new leaf, it's also a watered down version of playing online. for me, at least, it then makes sense that the cost to do so shouldn't be there. (unless it's definitively impossible to do so without using the service.) you don't expect to pay the same price for the same product when they are drastically different in quality. (i.e. visiting a town vs. dreaming of a town.) so that's how i feel about that. you're free to disagree, of course.

Ah see now i'm again confused. What do you mean "features that should already be in the game?" Are you comparing it to NL because that's not fair. NH isn't nl 2.0 it's an entirely different game. If NH had everything nl had then both games would lose it's luster. Nh wouldn't be original and nl would lose it's charm..Again Nintendo put up the paywall so they can have an easy way to make money to provide acnh dlc for free..it's like a vending machine t school you pay for the junk in it and the school uses the money to pay for books and other things for you to use for free..you don't have to pay for the food in the vending machine it's just there as a way to persuade you to buy something..

 

[Xeleron]

Looking at it from another perspective (partner works in IT) maintaining a server is a mother.... it takes a lot of time, energy and members. I'm sure they are paying people who are dedicated to maintaining the servers and the money has to come from somewhere. Yes, back in the day there was no membership, but as more and more people get internet access and with the huge influx of people accessing those servers, they need more people to maintain them, as well as needing new ones, I'm sure they aren't using the same servers they used 10+ years ago. There are multiple clients trying to access those servers over a span of several thousands of accounts and hundreds of games.

I do realize that what I'm about to say comes from a place of privilege, but a console is not free it can cost over 200 usd depending on the version you get and then you're paying for a 60 usd game... I don't see how people can't afford 3.99 every once in a while for online services... if you do the math and average a month to be around 30 days, it comes out to less than two cents per day, if people are able to save that amount of money for the game and console, they should be able to save 4 dollars for a months worth of online services.

 

[SheepMareep]

i think you're missing the point, actually. the game -- and by proxy the dlc -- isn't a service, it's a product, and it's a product that i paid for with my own money. would i have in the knowledge that the game was seriously lacking and borderline incomplete? no, probably not, and adding in features that should have already been in the base game without charging me an additional cost is exactly what they should be doing. now we could argue whether or not you think the game wasn't finished at launch (since i know from another thread you think it was) but that's not what OP asked so let's not.

This part threw me off a little bit?
Prior to the release of the game nintendo told us that a lot of the content would be added via DLC including holidays. It was well known that the game was not "fully complete" as a lot of features would not be available until later. This wasn't a hidden feature nintendo slid under the rug and left sticking out an inch in fine print. The need for nintendo online for online functionality was also explained prior to release-- this would naturally include ALL online functions such as visiting towns, dream suites, and getting custom designs from other people. I think it's weird to complain about the current features of the game as if we were lied to when going into it everyone had a very strong idea that it was not "finished" in the way previous titles were. (we even had reviewers who played the game for about a month who then made review videos prior to the release explaining this)

I get not liking corporations getting extra money from people but at the end of a day... it's a business... Just because they make a lot of money through selling games/consoles does not mean it doesn't go towards anything at all/just sits there. It goes to a lot such as marketing, paying workers, developing new technologies, creating new games, etc. which are all pretty expensive to do. Prior to the switch nintendo online services were free.. yes... but uh. Those free services were shut down after the console became obsolete in their eyes. You can't hop on the wii to play city folk and visit your friends town for free or at all anymore, since the servers don't even exist now. I mean the wii was released in 2006 and the services ended in 2014 i believe? the ps3 was released only 3 years after and online functionality is STILL available because the servers are paid for by the people using the systems, not the company itself.

Running servers are EXPENSIVE and a lot of work. I mean ask anyone who runs a large scale minecraft server... to get something that will not crash constantly/allow a ton of people on at once with huge builds and not lag/etc is a lot. I'm pretty sure servers go for around $20/mo just for a small 15-20 person max minecraft server. Let alone a large server like nintendo would require that's meant to cater to the majority of countries and thousands of players at once playing all different games.

 

[naranjita]

you guys, Nintendo doesn't have dedicated servers for any of their games. we're paying for P2P, which is just shameful

(that being said, I'm pretty sure most PS and XBOX games don't have dedicated servers either and are also P2P, so Nintendo is just doing what everyone else is doing. which is still bad)

 

[daringred_]

I do realize that what I'm about to say comes from a place of privilege, but a console is not free it can cost over 200 usd depending on the version you get and then you're paying for a 60 usd game... I don't see how people can't afford 3.99 every once in a while for online services... if you do the math and average a month to be around 30 days, it comes out to less than two cents per day, if people are able to save that amount of money for the game and console, they should be able to save 4 dollars for a months worth of online services.

yeah, you weren't kidding about the place of privilege. (don't mean that in a bad way, it's good you can acknowledge it.) that console could've been a christmas gift a parent in poverty put every spare penny they had into buying for their kid because it was the one thing they wanted most. that game (whether AC or any other) could be the only one they have. consoles also come secondhand, and that makes them marginally more affordable too.

the big rebuttal, however, is that people's circumstances change and they can change drastically. especially financially. the switch has been out for, what, 2 years or something now? that's more than enough time to go from one end of the financial spectrum to the other. having the console isn't synonymous with being able to afford the online, even if it might seem cheap to us.

 

[Saga]

I don't mind having *some* things being tied to Nintendo Online, but right now, it's way too many. I think the most egregious is the ability to download custom patterns. This was free in every previous game. I understand maybe locking the ability to upload/share patterns (as that takes up more data to store), but downloading them? No way.

The other thing I think shouldn't be locked behind the paid subscription is trading, since it's impossible to get all items and color variations without it. It's almost impossible to get the items you want or decorate properly without trading. So they should either make trading free, or they should give us the ability to easily get all color variations on our own. That means Nook's Cranny and the ABD selling all the colors of each item, and not just one. As it is now, shaking trees and waiting for Redd to bring different-colored items take so long it's not a viable way of getting all the items, in reality.

But only letting each island (easily) get one color of each item is quite cruel when the only real way to get the others is through a paid subscription, especially during a pandemic when so many people are unemployed.

 

[daringred_]

This part threw me off a little bit?
Prior to the release of the game nintendo told us that a lot of the content would be added via DLC including holidays. It was well known that the game was not "fully complete" as a lot of features would not be available until later. This wasn't a hidden feature nintendo slid under the rug and left sticking out an inch in fine print. The need for nintendo online for online functionality was also explained prior to release-- this would naturally include ALL online functions such as visiting towns, dream suites, and getting custom designs from other people. I think it's weird to complain about the current features of the game as if we were lied to when going into it everyone had a very strong idea that it was not "finished" in the way previous titles were. (we even had reviewers who played the game for about a month who then made review videos prior to the release explaining this)

I get not liking corporations getting extra money from people but at the end of a day... it's a business... Just because they make a lot of money through selling games/consoles does not mean it doesn't go towards anything at all/just sits there. It goes to a lot such as marketing, paying workers, developing new technologies, creating new games, etc. which are all pretty expensive to do. Prior to the switch nintendo online services were free.. yes... but uh. Those free services were shut down after the console became obsolete in their eyes. You can't hop on the wii to play city folk and visit your friends town for free or at all anymore, since the servers don't even exist now. I mean the wii was released in 2006 and the services ended in 2014 i believe? the ps3 was released only 3 years after and online functionality is STILL available because the servers are paid for by the people using the systems, not the company itself.

Running servers are EXPENSIVE and a lot of work. I mean ask anyone who runs a large scale minecraft server... to get something that will not crash constantly/allow a ton of people on at once with huge builds and not lag/etc is a lot. I'm pretty sure servers go for around $20/mo just for a small 15-20 person max minecraft server. Let alone a large server like nintendo would require that's meant to cater to the majority of countries and thousands of players at once playing all different games.

it really wasn't lmao unless i missed some big announcement. there was nothing about over half of the content from NL being scrapped from this game and they never specified that the DLC content would be almost exclusively (thus far) pre-existing stuff as opposed to new content, which i have no doubt is what most people thought it would be, myself included. so, yes, it was a hidden "feature" and deliberately deceptive whether they intended for it to be or not. (and, given that it's a massive corporation, probably was.) let's not pretend they were clear cut about all of that because they weren't and we all know it, whether we want to admit it or not.

i'm not going to dignify the rest of this because, at a skim, it sounds like more words in my mouth as if i don't know full well what a business is and how they operate. although i will point out -- much like so many others before me -- that nintendo doesn't pay for servers. it's all P2P. so your point about servers being expensive is mostly moot.

 

[SheepMareep]

you guys, Nintendo doesn't have dedicated servers for any of their games. we're paying for P2P, which is just shameful

(that being said, I'm pretty sure most PS and XBOX games don't have dedicated servers either and are also P2P, so Nintendo is just doing what everyone else is doing. which is still bad)

I thought they were making dedicated servers for things like smash and arms? I guess it was just a rumor oops kdjnfkdjsfn

 

[Xeleron]

yeah, you weren't kidding about the place of privilege. (don't mean that in a bad way, it's good you can acknowledge it.) that console could've been a christmas gift a parent in poverty put every spare penny they had into buying for their kid because it was the one thing they wanted most. that game (whether AC or any other) could be the only one they have. consoles also come secondhand, and that makes them marginally more affordable too.

the big rebuttal, however, is that people's circumstances change and they can change drastically. especially financially. the switch has been out for, what, 2 years or something now? that's more than enough time to go from one end of the financial spectrum to the other. having the console isn't synonymous with being able to afford the online, even if it might seem cheap to us.

I get what you're saying, there are hundreds of different scenarios to interpret that! But in all seriousness and again from a place of privilege, I don't think people who can barely afford a living are going to spend that kind of money on a Christmas/any other gift, again my partner didn't come from a lot of money growing up and his parents would get them older models of consoles i.e if the wii was the new console, they would've bought the gamecube instead. Even buying second hand consoles comes at a hefty price, it's not cheap if you don't have the money to comfortably sustain yourself.

Like you say, things change and everyones circumstances are different. I'm just more under the idea that if you can afford all of this, a one month membership once a year or every few months shouldn't be a big deal. Think about it like this, instead of the price tag for the game being 60 usd it's 64 usd, people would still get it at that price point.I just want to mention that this is for people who can purchase their own consoles, I know kids are very limited, especially if their parents tell them they don't want to pay for a subscription.

Post automatically merged: Jul 29, 2020

you guys, Nintendo doesn't have dedicated servers for any of their games. we're paying for P2P, which is just shameful

(that being said, I'm pretty sure most PS and XBOX games don't have dedicated servers either and are also P2P, so Nintendo is just doing what everyone else is doing. which is still bad)

Oh.. could you tell me how they store their data? I'm asking seriously, I would really like to know more about this topic, or where can I find more info on how the online services side of things work?

 

[daringred_]

I get what you're saying, there are hundreds of different scenarios to interpret that! But in all seriousness and again from a place of privilege, I don't think people who can barely afford a living are going to spend that kind of money on a Christmas/any other gift, again my partner didn't come from a lot of money growing up and his parents would get them older models of consoles i.e if the wii was the new console, they would've bought the gamecube instead. Even buying second hand consoles comes at a hefty price, it's not cheap if you don't have the money to comfortably sustain yourself.

Like you say, things change and everyones circumstances are different. I'm just more under the idea that if you can afford all of this, a one month membership once a year or every few months shouldn't be a big deal. Think about it like this, instead of the price tag for the game being 60 usd it's 64 usd, people would still get it at that price point.I just want to mention that this is for people who can purchase their own consoles, I know kids are very limited, especially if their parents tell them they don't want to pay for a subscription.

i suppose it depends. i don't come from a lot of money either and never have but i still got both the wii and 3DS exceptionally early in their lives. i'm pretty sure my parents still take out loans to this day around christmas time so they can buy us gifts. certainly not something i recommend, but i understand why they do/did it. you don't want your kid feeling left out when their peers all come back to school in january gushing about the latest gaming console or toy etc. and you don't want to feel like you're letting them down. so i suppose, in that regard, it's not unreasonable -- or even uncommon -- for people to have consoles they can't afford the online services for or games they can't afford the (later) DLC for etc.

 

[naranjita]

I thought they were making dedicated servers for things like smash and arms? I guess it was just a rumor oops kdjnfkdjsfn

I did some extensive research (aka I did a couple of google searches) and there's actually some debate over whether dedicated servers or P2P are better for fighting games? idk I'm not smart enough for this stuff :'D

Oh.. could you tell me how they store their data? I'm asking seriously, I would really like to know more about this topic, or where can I find more info on how the online services side of things work?

they use a peer to peer (P2P) model, as opposed to a client-server based model. in a client-server based model, the client (that would be your console) requests services and information from the server. think of Twitter, for example; Twitter stores an incredible amount of data (tweets, users, media...) that couldn't possibly fit on a normal person's computer (let alone a tablet or smartphone). in order to make Twitter usable by anyone, all that information is stored in Twitter's servers, and you "borrow" it from those servers to use on your device. of course, those servers need to be maintained, and that costs money.

a P2P model doesn't have a dedicated server to store all the information; all the users involved in the P2P system (in the case of ACNH, that would be the players playing with each other) have a small piece of the data, and they share it with each other. basically, your consoles tell other players all the information about your island, character, etc, and the other person's console sends you information about their own island, character, and so on. as far as I know, this costs Nintendo nothing, because the information is stored on each player's console and not on a server owned by Nintendo, and the connection is achieved through each player's Internet provider (which they're already paying for).

I'm not involved in IT in any way so this is like a super basic rundown of what P2P is; my explanation is probably not 100% accurate but I think that's the gist of it!

 

[Xeleron]

i suppose it depends. i don't come from a lot of money either and never have but i still got both the wii and 3DS exceptionally early in their lives. i'm pretty sure my parents still take out loans to this day around christmas time so they can buy us gifts. certainly not something i recommend, but i understand why they do/did it. you don't want your kid feeling left out when their peers all come back to school in january gushing about the latest gaming console or toy etc. and you don't want to feel like you're letting them down. so i suppose, in that regard, it's not unreasonable -- or even uncommon -- for people to have consoles they can't afford the online services for or games they can't afford the (later) DLC for etc.

To this day, his mom does really regret not being able to afford all the 'cool' stuff they (him and his siblings) wanted, but my partner doesn't hold that against her, so I think it's really sweet of your parents to have gone that extra mile, even if they put themselves a an economical disadvantage for it. I guess it is different times, now with social media, it's easy to see what we're missing out on, I don't think not having the lates and greatest was an issue for him back in the day.

I don't think I said this is my initial post, but a paywall does show some elitism for those who are able to afford NOS to does who don't, I am not denying this. Although, as far as the content that's available for those who pay and those who don't I guess I don't really mind (what I mean is that if I personally didn't have NOS I wouldn't mind having features that are not accessible for me, I probably wouldn't be here to begin with, but I wouldn't hold Nintendo accountable for it either).

Post automatically merged: Jul 29, 2020

I did some extensive research (aka I did a couple of google searches) and there's actually some debate over whether dedicated servers or P2P are better for fighting games? idk I'm not smart enough for this stuff :'D

they use a peer to peer (P2P) model, as opposed to a client-server based model. in a client-server based model, the client (that would be your console) requests services and information from the server. think of Twitter, for example; Twitter stores an incredible amount of data (tweets, users, media...) that couldn't possibly fit on a normal person's computer (let alone a tablet or smartphone). in order to make Twitter usable by anyone, all that information is stored in Twitter's servers, and you "borrow" it from those servers to use on your device. of course, those servers need to be maintained, and that costs money.

a P2P model doesn't have a dedicated server to store all the information; all the users involved in the P2P system (in the case of ACNH, that would be the players playing with each other) have a small piece of the data, and they share it with each other. basically, your consoles tell other players all the information about your island, character, etc, and the other person's console sends you information about their own island, character, and so on. as far as I know, this costs Nintendo nothing, because the information is stored on each player's console and not on a server owned by Nintendo, and the connection is achieved through each player's Internet provider (which they're already paying for).

I'm not involved in IT in any way so this is like a super basic rundown of what P2P is; my explanation is probably not 100% accurate but I think that's the gist of it!

I am familiar with the definition of what a client is, I've taken an interest to IT so I'm learning the basics, that's essentially why I wanted more info on the subject and your explanation is very clear, thank you. I always thought that when you visited another island, the loading screen was the client trying to access information from the server, but I guess what you say also makes sense, you're essentially accessing (maybe even downloading some) information from the person you're visiting. I guess I'll have to do more research on the topic lol

 

[-Blue-]

I thought they were making dedicated servers for things like smash and arms? I guess it was just a rumor oops kdjnfkdjsfn

Smash is P2P and doesn't have dedicated servers. As this isn't a thread about smash I won't get into detail but there is a huge list of how terrible the online for Smash Ult is compared to 4 and it's not just because one is free and the other is online membership. They made so many unnecessary changes that the community is still pretty much bitter over it. And rightfully so.

 

[Corrie]

Nintendo Online should be free to begin with. There's no server so I have no idea what I'm paying for. Nothing, would be my answer.

 

[-Blue-]

Nintendo Online should be free to begin with. There's no server so I have no idea what I'm paying for. Nothing, would be my answer.

You're paying for the cloud saves.

Oh wait.

 

[Cosmic-chan]

Nintendo Online should be free to begin with. There's no server so I have no idea what I'm paying for. Nothing, would be my answer.

You're paying for Splatoon 2 online duh.