What is this absolute bullshit about individual vs family Nintendo Switch Online plans?
- Thread starter Optional Objectives
- Start date
OP
OP
OP
OP
Actually...you can get a year of PS+ for $35 at this very moment. (USA)
Prepaid Gaming Cards for Sale - eBay
Save Big on new & used Prepaid Gaming Cards from top brands like Playstation, Psn, Microsoft & more. Shop our extensive selection of products and best online deals. Free Shipping for many items!
www.ebay.com
And even if you couldn't today, it regularly goes on sale in the $35-40 range. So does XBL Gold. If you're still paying full price for either PS+ or XBL Gold, you're making a conscious choice to pay more for no reason. I'd ask "is anyone even paying full price?" but there was just a thread about that days ago.
The OP's criticism is 100% valid.
Yes, you can share Xbox Live Gold with any user on your XB1:
Xbox Support
beta.support.xbox.com
Share PlayStation Plus benefits on PlayStation consoles
Learn how to share the benefits of PlayStation Plus on a PlayStation®5 console and a PlayStation®4 console.
www.playstation.com
This behavior is unique to Nintendo Switch. And it sucks.
I have already responded to this line of nonsense so many times, so I'll just link to the last time I did.
how the F did we just accept paying for online on consoles?
I'm literally copy-pasting from the last time. We really do have this thread every few weeks now. Initially, it happened because Microsoft wanted developers to actually include online features in ALL of their games. How did they do this? By setting up a huge infrastructure and providing...
www.resetera.com
If not looking for an occassional sale price is consciously paying more for no reason, then get 8 people to pitch in on an NSO Family Plan, otherwise you're paying more for no reason. Even if you want all users on your console to be able to play online, reserve 4 of the 8 spots in the Family Plan, and your cost is still divided down to $7. Very few people need more than 4 online accounts on their system, let alone 8.Actually...you can get a year of PS+ for $35 at this very moment. (USA)
Prepaid Gaming Cards for Sale - eBay
Save Big on new & used Prepaid Gaming Cards from top brands like Playstation, Psn, Microsoft & more. Shop our extensive selection of products and best online deals. Free Shipping for many items!www.ebay.com
And even if you couldn't today, it regularly goes on sale in the $35-40 range. So does XBL Gold. If you're still paying full price for either PS+ or XBL Gold, you're making a conscious choice to pay more for no reason. I'd ask "is anyone even paying full price?" but there was just a thread about that days ago.
The OP's criticism is 100% valid.
Yes, you can share Xbox Live Gold with any user on your XB1:
Yes, other users on your registered PS4 can play online when you subscribe to Plus:Xbox Support
Share PlayStation Plus benefits on PlayStation consoles
Learn how to share the benefits of PlayStation Plus on a PlayStation®5 console and a PlayStation®4 console.
This behavior is unique to Nintendo Switch. And it sucks.
I have already responded to this line of nonsense so many times, so I'll just link to the last time I did.
how the F did we just accept paying for online on consoles?
I'm literally copy-pasting from the last time. We really do have this thread every few weeks now. Initially, it happened because Microsoft wanted developers to actually include online features in ALL of their games. How did they do this? By setting up a huge infrastructure and providing...
Although it sucks not every account on one Switch can go online despite paying $20 a year, accounts work fundamentally differently on the Switch than the other systems such that all your data is tied solely to your account and not the system, thus needing online checks for the secondary account and whatnot. I feel like the problem there stems from the backwards way Nintendo decided to implement accounts (which also led to controversies like with Animal Crossing save data).
I think he was trying to outsmart the system and it back fired on him. I see this all the time, and yes if he YouTubed it, it would of saved him a lot of headach.
I will respond to this line of nonsense by pointing out that Steam exists and provides exactly everything you describe in that link, except free of charge.
You can't compare the two.
One involves being a savvy shopper, the other involves actually having to involve and coordinate with other people.
It's also much more difficult to find people in need of a NSO subscription now. They've been available for quite a while, and since Animal Crossing has already been out for weeks, most folks recently subscribed and are already set.
My situation was this: I'd gotten the free sub via Twitch Prime and it expired in April. My sister had already just bought a year of the personal membership when AC came out. I convinced her to upgrade to Family so that we could split it. But I can't find anyone else that we can split it with.
Compared with just clicking a link and buying at a discount, this involves a lot more effort, yes?
Steam exists on PC, a platform where online play has always been free. The resistance would be far greater.
Also, Steam didn't offer all of those services at first, nor did they add them back in the early 2000s when Microsoft was building the world's first infrastructure to support all of that stuff, trying to popularize online play on consoles. That was expensive, and that's how it all started.
So what you're saying is that it is possible to deliver this service for free with no discernible detriment to either the plarform holder, the game developer or the consumer but it's okay to charge money for it regardless just because it wasn't popular on consoles 15 to 20 years ago.
Not very compelling, especially considering the quality of service both Sony and Nintendo charge for is so often inferior compared to Steam's free service, in terms of features AND stability.
I was the same, but I let my sub lapse because it's just fucking terrible and there's very few games that are worth playing online on the switch. PS plus may be more expensive (not if you pick it up during one of the yearly sales mind) but it's a far better service and actually provides value as far as paying for online goes.
Honestly, I'm shocked that Valve is delivering the service that they do for "free." I use quotes because this is probably a large part of why they're not budging on their 30% cut. At the end of the day, nothing is truly free; everything costs something to somebody. Lots of people like to complain about Steam and their 30% cut, but I think what they're doing with it is amazing. It's definitely the exception, though. Nobody else provides the sort of service that they do for the price of "free."
To get to where they are now, they rolled out their services piecemeal over the course of years. The fact that Steam is the runaway leading gaming platform on PC has enabled them to be able to provide this level of service. Only in recent years have we been able to compare Steam to XBL and PSN; it wasn't always as comprehensive and all-encompassing as it is now. They took their success and used it to expand their services. They have provided their services free to gamers forever, and have provided their services free to developers since they allowed 3rd-party developers. It would be difficult for them to justify charging for them now. And since they had 20 million active users in March, they're getting plenty of 30% cuts.
By contrast, Microsoft needed to charge for XBL Gold back around the turn of the century because their strategy was to popularize online play, and wanted developers to include online features in as many games as possible. Charging developers to add those features would have deterred them, so they asked the gamers to pay for the infrastructure instead. They also have costs that Steam doesn't have; they needed to develop and still need to support their entire hardware platform, plus every few years they need to develop new hardware. This is enormously expensive, of course, especially support (Red Ring cost them a fortune...). Microsoft pays for advertising; I can't recall ever seeing an ad for Steam. I could probably find other examples.
Fast-forward to now. The infrastructure is bigger than ever before, and they have almost 20 years' worth of experience, but someone still has to pay for it. Could they charge less for Gold now than they currently do? Possibly, especially since Microsoft has other aspects to their business. I'm not saying that Gold should still cost $60/year at retail. But I am saying is that some level of cost is justified for the services they provide.
In years to come, hopefully platform owners will monitor the cost of their services and adjust them proportionately to the market and their competitors. Who knows? Maybe if the economy tanks and less folks have disposable income, we'll see some of the prices come down, at least temporarily.
It sucks for sure but this was known information and $35 bucks is nothing.
I know it is a shitty mentality and giving an inch would allow them to take a mile, but it's $35.
I know it is a shitty mentality and giving an inch would allow them to take a mile, but it's $35.