Topic: Nintendo Labo

@Kidfried I don't think people are that stupid. TV, telephone and internet plans have multiple options. Even my healthcare plan has a giant checklist of things I want and don't want. Having the PS+ games, cloud storage and online play available as separate options won't hurt.

I'll be happy to pay $20/year for cloud storage on my Switch. Actually, if PS4 had a $20 cloud storage option, I'd probably pop for that, too. Unfortunately, even with a steep sale price, it's still double that to sub for a year, no matter what you want from it. And at $60/year... shudders

@Octane @Ralizah @Kidfried @Fight_Teza_Fight Im wondering how the Nintendo service will pan out.

Its fine as is without one.

I remember vanilla xbox live when all we did was pay for online play. That was bs. Money down the drain so to speak. Since then psplus and xbox live have offered really great value. I cant envisage any of us being happy paying an annual sum for a bare bones service and a nes game a month, it will be ripped to shreds especially with xbox offering all their games at release on a similar plan.

@themcnoisy I don't need free games or discounts, because 90% of my game purchases are day one, and I prefer physical copies for the big titles. That part of PS+ is entirely pointless. Yet it's required for online, there's no way I can only get the online access without paying for all the fluff that's marking up the price. I think that shows how cheap it is to run dedicated servers (because most of their games don't even use them), if they need all this extra stuff to make it worthwhile. With PS+ you're not paying for the online anymore, which was the original premise, you're paying for the ''free'' games and discounts.

@Octane the original premise for plus was the free games and discounts, not online play. That's how it started, on PS3. Now people see these things as a bonus, but it was the other way round. That shift in priorities when PS4 came out is a big reason people have such wildly different opinions and expectations of the service imo.

@kyleforrester87 You also have a fair few that jumped from Xbox 360 to PS4 so see PS+ in the same way as they saw Gold. Those who maybe had PS3 could see PS+ as a black mail charge that they are now forced to pay for Online gaming - something that was Free before and even the 'games and discounts' are overall not at the same standard as they once were. You could look at it cynically and see that despite the numbers of PS3's there were, PS+ was 'insigificant' in terms of users - less than 5% - however by putting online behind a paywall, that has jumped up significantly - maybe even to nearly 50%.

Gold may well have been about 'online only' but its also had its discounts for Gold users too. It may not seem like as many games but Sony's were more 'monthly' where as MS's were more weekly. However, with the arrival of PS+, MS has improved its 'value' by adding Games with Gold. Granted those games on the 360 era weren't as new as those on PS+ but I would say that now on the current Gen, £ for £, Gold offers much greater value - especially if you only own an XB1 or PS4. You could argue that with a PS3 and Vita, PS+ is as good value - although you still never get to keep the PS3 games permanently - unlike the XB360 games. Gold is also £10 a year cheaper.

Anyway, that's what Nintendo are looking at - how to get their customers to 'subscribe' to a service - make it almost essential that they have little choice to get the 'most' out of the games they buy. The most obvious is to charge for 'online' and make more online/service games that require you to buy a subscription to access the full content. Dangling a carrot, like a free game or two, some 'small' discount in the digital store (where they get a lot of profit from - rather than retailers, distribution cost/profits, manufacturing cost/profits etc) may make people gloss over the fact that they are being basically blackmailed to pay so that they can play all of the content on a game they bought. Let alone the fact we pay our ISP to use the internet and most of the games are 'peer to peer' so not involving ANY servers etc that Nintendo, Sony or MS may be using - incurring no 'maintenance' cost - minimal cost I guess if they are keeping you details/saves etc on a server that may need to be 'maintained'.

£20 isn't a lot of money for a year. The carrot of an old game a month that you don't keep isn't as big of a carrot as Sony/MS offer and maybe the 'discounts' could be similar too. If it is £20 a year, that's half the price of Gold and 2/5ths that of PS+. Maybe its also going to be less needed too, with games like Zelda and Mario for example not requiring it. Potentially you can hook up a few Switches to play locally in games like Mario Kart or Splatoon - it would be needed though for 'online' gaming.

Is it worth it? well that would come down to individuals. Some could say that Gold/PS+ isn't worth it for them as they only play SP games, don't buy digitally and have no interest in the free games. Value depends on how much people get out of something and if you get very little or no use out of what subscriptions offer, regardless of whether they are less than £2 a month or upto £100 a month (like SkyQ with both sports and movies premium channels), they still depend on whether the individual gets any or little use out of it.

@Octane It's fluff and pointless to you, not to everyone. I enjoy all those features.

"Even my healthcare plan has a giant checklist..." Lol, I'd rather have options for my healthcare plan than those few bucks I pay for Plus. And people find healthcare plans incredibly difficult, so I don't see how it contributes to your argument.

Not saying PS Plus couldn't be improved or that the current situation is perfect, but your critique is just completely specific to your case. It's pretty difficult to build business decisions around what each individual would love.

@themcnoisy I'm kinda with you. Nintendo's online service will be a difficult sell. Nintendo isn't well known for great online experiences, so going from the current situation to a situation in which you pay for online will be awkward.

NES games will not have the same impact as PS Plus games have on PS4. A free retro game will be difficult to sell to the mainstream consumer. And it will certainly be difficult to do an Instant Game Collection on Switch for multiple reasons (which I'm too lazy to name right now).

And it will be difficult to get subscribers, as I think Nintendo always focused more on local multiplayer. So, now suddenly making a big deal about online multiplayer... I don't know.

We'll see!

Meanwhile on Nintendo Labo...

I'm gonna guess this will sell a million at least. It's a big ask for the kiddies but it's unique enough to warrant it, and I can see creative types really getting a kick from it.

All about the imagination after all.

@YummyHappyPills Way back Nintendo considered Wii Music to be a commercial flop, even though it sold almost 2 million. Labo feels like Wii Music all over again.

@Kidfried Uhuh.

I imagine they said it was a flop as it followed Wii Party, Sports, Fit, etc. Wii Music was effectively the indication that brand was dying.

Labo is at least something different and marginally interesting, as opposed to using the Wiimote's tech in the same way its been used before...for something else.

Also remember that Wii era Nintendo were brazen and just expected folks to lap it up in the 10s of millions, like MK Wii and NSMB Wii were. Nowadays they've stated as much that breaking even is a good thing, as the case was with Zelda.

Either way, I didn't say how they would view its reception. Its obvious they aren't using this to determine if the system itself is worth dropping or not, the rest of the games coming show that much. This is a side venture. I imagine it's being held in the same light as amiibo was, and the merch deals. If it flops, we tried something, it didn't stick, at least we tried.

Gotta remember a few of their mobile games have been considered flops by people, but Nintendo has stated they are happy with that, as it is all supplemental income.

Anyway I shall revise my estimate on reflection: 500k to 1 million. If it does more than that ill be impressed.

@themcnoisy At this point, I'm wondering if Nintendo's online service is even going to come out!

$20/year is great, but I don't really care about online play, so it'll depend on the bundled features for me. As I've said, cloud storage is my killer app. Increased discounts during sales or some sort of access to a VC library would overly sweeten the deal. But if it's just NES games and online play? Nah.

@YummyHappyPills It'll do better than a million for sure. Especially if they release more than two sets, which is inevitable I think. And as long as I don't need cardboard to play Pikmin 4, I'm fine with that!

@Kidfried I don't see how offering three different services would be that difficult to understand. Subscribe to PS+, and select from three boxes which features you want: online play, cloud saves, PS+ games and discounts. Maybe hide it behind an ''advanced'' setting, so that the general public doesn't see it, or lock it behind an IQ test if they're worried about people getting confused

It's a small thing, and the only reason they're doing it this way is because I expect a lot of people will ditch the games and discounts if possible. None of my friends make use of it, and the only reason they're paying €60 a year is because they want to play online. Which is kinda silly, because most of their games are P2P, which makes me wonder why we're even paying at all for online. The only reason I can think of is that every console gamer has accepted the fact that online is hidden behind a paywall.

@Octane "online play, cloud saves, PS+ games and discounts."

Why would you want it diced up and charged like Sky (uk tv provider) when its relative peanuts for what we get now? The full hit for £50 a year with a chance for 51 games across Vita, ps4 and psvr last year. Thats crazy value.

Obviously the game quality varies but just this month with Deus Ex, Psycho pass, the saving on Edith finch just after new year and starblood arena vr probably covers the yearly outlay. Its mental really. I dont want it to change AT ALL!

@themcnoisy I never said the current setup needs to be changed, I just think separate options should be offered for those who want it.

I don't play a lot of games online, so it's not even worth paying €60 (even if they used dedicated servers), and I can play the same games online for free on PC. Sony's games don't use dedicated servers anyway, so don't even understand why those are included in the PS+ sub either. It's P2P, and I'm already paying for that through my provider. It's literally a paywall that exists for no reason, except for making PS+ look like a better deal, since it's almost kinda mandatory at this point.

I acknowledge the value some people see in the free games and the discounts, but they're not for me. I buy most of my games day one, and I prefer to buy physical for most games (indie games excluded of course). So the discounts won't do me any good, and I'm certainly not going to wait for a certain game to be included in the monthly PS+ games. So if I can get online and cloud saves for €10 a year, I'd consider it. I'd still disagree with the principle of paying for P2P servers, but whatever, at least I have access to cloud saves that way.

@Octane I dunno man, I think if we let Sony think thats a good idea we will be left with what in essence the crap ms pulled on xbox. Online should be free.

The fact psplus comes with loads of games is the service for me, Ive tried games I would probably never buy which have been a ton of fun. Obviously its different for you but even downloading 3 or 4 games a year makes a huge difference than say £30 a year for online only and paying for those games.

Ive gone way off course here and Im in the wrong thread lol. What Im defending I think, is the fact I benefit massively on psplus as I like playing alot of games and own ps4, vita and psvr and dont particularly care if the games are any good as I will play them depending on my mood.

@themcnoisy I get that, and I'm not saying they should do away with the current setup, just offer different alternatives, cause it feels right now I need to pay big money to get these big games on PS+, while in reality I only want the online aspect. Not sure what the 'crap' is MS pulled you're referring too, but yes, it should be free in theory, but it isn't right now.

Anyway, Labo

@Octane the original xbox live. I was paying £50 a year just to play online with no free games.

@KratosMD Who's forced..? If a game needs a weird peripheral that I'm not interested in getting, I doubt the game will be of interest to me either. If I am interested in the game, you can bet the peripheral will be part of the reason I'm interested, so what's the problem exactly?

@kyleforrester87 This.

Its a side line. Wii still had core games without Wii Fit. PS4 still has games withoutVR. Switch will still have gakes without peripherals.

Such is the way of the industry.

Nice to see people calling death so soon though. Fickle minds and all that. You dont maintain momentum by aiming at one market only you know