Topic: Nintendo Network's greatest asset (no paywall) is under-utilized.

Except it's not, really, since it brings up the question of why consoles can't monetize their services in a way that appears to add inherent value. Why do companies run their own servers with steam, and expect live or psn to run servers for them with consoles? Why can't consoles hook people in with an initial purchase, then get them to buy a ton more via sales?

Is your argument that Microsoft and Sony are incompetent?

This isn't an argument, its an observation. lol. Less responsibilities and expenditures plus additional sources of revenue allow Steam to be free.

If you'd like to say Sony and Microsoft are incompetent for not finding additional sources of revenue, that is perfectly fine with me. I'm not personally attached to either of them or their intelligence. lol

Though would those alternatives be more financially sound than the subscription/incentive model? Nobody knows, so there's no sense in arguing over that.

@AlexSays

Nobody here has given an accurate picture of what Steam really is and what Valve does as a company. You do know Valve is currently running more games than just TF2, right? You've got multiple versions of CounterStrike still going strong, Left for Dead 1 and 2, and Dota 2, just to name a few. Speaking from personal experience with TF2 and Dota 2, on-line numbers at any given point PER GAME can number 200,000+ quite easily. I realize, for the 360 especially (also speaking from personal experience), that a game like Ghosts can number 300,000+ concurrently, but those numbers tend to die down after the initial few months of release.

Fact of the matter is: the comparison of XBL or PSN to Steam IS accurate, as all three companies do need to hold up pretty similar numbers of concurrent players across the games they are hosting through said portal services. You are correct that Valve has chosen to do lots of micro transactions with their "hats" in Dota 2 and TF2, while PSN and XBL have gone the way of subscription. There's no knowing what Nintendo might try to do if their numbers continue to increase, but one thing's for sure: nobody in this forum knows, nor do they have the right to laugh at other people's opinions.

Again, less features, less responsibilities, additional sources of revenue. Concurrent players aren't indicative of total cost, the features being utilized by those players are.

We're comparing a console publisher to a digital service that provides an interface and publishes games every once in a while. Valve is a small company; if they required a subscription, what would they possibly spend it on?

Meanwhile, Sony and Microsoft rely on subscriptions to afford and expand their online services. These aren't opinions being laughed, these are misunderstandings of reality and naivety regarding the online infrastructure of consoles vs. a digital distribution platform.

Just to nail the point across, look at how many games Sony published in the same time span as Valve.

How many of those are online? How many MMOs has Sony published? Ok now how large is the social media division of Valve? What about their television/movie/music division? Does Valve also have an online music and video service to maintain? Is Valve also working with Redbox, Hulu, etc. for streaming services? How much is Sony required to work with developers for online games, compared to Valve (who only serves to distribute the game)? Does Valve also have three different platforms to manage (like Vita, PS3, and PS4)?

How many employees does Sony have? A thousand or so at each of its three headquarters, plus a couple hundred for every first party developer? How many does Valve have? ~300 which somehow miraculously maintain the Steam store, develop games, develop apps, and produce an entirely new system. The operating costs and workload are nowhere near the same ballpark, which makes this a fairly ridiculous tangent. I'd love to know what makes Steam's operating costs so high.

Hate to break it to you guys but @AlexSays is right. There's huge differences between the 2 platforms and what works on one does not work on the other. They are 2 entirely different models formed for different business.

Deep man, deep.

@AlexSays

You took a lot of time to write that, but unfortunately you are wrong. You do realize that Sony Online is a totally separate division from "PSN" Sony, right? Therefore, you can't use those nice chunky paragraphs up there to prove anything. Back to the drawing board, I suppose. I feel kind of bad. "lol," as you would type.

That is a detailed, insightful explanation of how Sony's online service is very similar to Steam in both features and operating cost.

It's simply a matter of what they can an can't get away with charging. Steam, Apple, Google and Nintendo all have free services along similar lines to what Sony and Microsoft are charging money for. Youtube, UStream and Twitch are free services and you can be damn sure that those demand much more from servers than others do because they're providing a much higher bandwidth product. On the other hand people are fine with the idea of paying for music subscriptions despite the fact that music is a much, much lower bandwidth media.

Pretty damn sure that Nintendo's server costs about as substantial as the other players in this space. The thing that's likely happening is that, along with Steam and Sony pre-PS4, they're absorbing the cost and passing it on through game prices. The day they think they can get away with it is the day that they start charging for it. Same reason for Microsoft's backflips post E3 this year, that stuff wasn't needed they just wanted to see whether or not they could get away with it.

I've never proposed to any of my girlfriends, I've never interviewed anyone, and I'm not a journalist (though I do have a publication!). I was with the same girl for four years (though I recently broke up with her) and have argued online with developers, so that's kinda close.

I appreciate you kinda following my life though. Perhaps some other time we can iron out the details and I can share my success stories.

I wasn't portraying you as a stalker, I genuinely appreciate you kind of remembering details about me. lol

Also all is well with the breakup, it had to end because of my career choice and we've both already moved on to other people. And my hectic schedule is why I take week/month long breaks, but then I run into days like today where I get to chill in my apartment all day and randomly check this site while I do other stuff (play games, spend time with new girlfriend, catch up on the DVR) so it's not really at the expense of more important things (though new gf might take issue with this).

Plus arguing over silly things like video games provides a nice whimsical distraction from my other day to day activities.

As digital distribution kicks up, it's not really eating the cost and passing it on through game prices. Servers are how you distribute the games, so paying for them is a real part of the price of digital games. As Sony, Microsoft, and Nintendo's digital sales pick up, they stand to make more money through online sales than other means, especially on other publisher's games, and online services should self incentivize their own upkeep (though subscriptions would only go away if they're shown to drive away a significant market share from console online services).

Nintendo hasn't pushed it because they haven't had any real first party online heavy games not counting Miiverse. It would have helped immensely at launch if Nintendo had a game that had online multiplayer at launch or by a year in got some. Its a combination of that and some of the Wii U's online games like Monster Hunter not taking advantage of Miiverse to its full advantage.

At launch Sony released two three first party games and two of them have Online multiplayer, and one having online interaction with Sony's version of Miiverse. Microsoft published 8 launch games and 6 of them have online multiplayer.

It sucks since I think Nintendoland could have benefitted from online play for a few games. Things are looking up with wii sports club being a good game, and now looks to be joined with some more games next year. It took slower than the 3DS did, which is a a tad bit disappointed.

Not sure if you're agreeing with me or not. If anything a model that skewed towards digital distribution, where the margins are higher, would enable more absorbtion of server costs. Consider this.

Let's assume that the "distribution share" pie chart that goes around is accurate and a good 40% of a game's ticket price is in retail margins and distribution costs. Let's also say that an average gamer might buy 2-7 games a year on their preferred platform. Given that games retail for ~$80AU if that's the case then our "average gamer" is already giving an extra $60-220/year to the game company each year if they go digital. That's what Steam gets by default for using a primarily digital distribution model. Given that fact it's easy to see how they could cover the $120AU/yr Microsoft is charging for XBLive in the cost of the game.

They could easily alter the system and cover the costs but they choose not to because they can get away with it. It's another way to get money out of your wallet, nothing more. On that note I think the idea of locking people out of the digital store if they don't pay the subscription fee is biting the hand that feeds you.

I was more or less saying that it's not so much absorbing, when digital distribution is concerned, because servers become how the product is delivered. The price of server maintenance becomes an actual expense of the game price.

Admittedly, this doesn't make an actual difference.

Its free because its vastly inferior to the competition.
And unfortunately I think Nintendo is going to take the cheap way out and not push online multiplayer for yet another gen. Smash Bros and Mario Kart having a strong online presence is very nice but it really doesnt mean much if games like Mario 3D World, Nintendoland, and many of their other notable games focus on local multiplayer.

translation: Nintendo knows how to make a profit, unlike most video game companies apparently (lol re6)

tl;dr.

I just dislike the fact that I can't use netflix at all in my xbox 360.

Another $50-60 for a slightly better service would not go over well, certain posters need to give their head a shake. I don't care if they can afford it, so can I. Not interested, in fact, most of the fanbase wouldn't be interested in another online console fee, especially if the Wii U isn't their primary console.