Over the past few days Nintendo Switch owners had a chance to try out Splatoon 2 in its first Global Testfire. There's no firm release date for the colourful shooter as yet, and much about it remains a mystery; as a result it's not unreasonable to wonder whether it was simply the first Global Testfire with more to come – we shall see.
In any case, a maximum of six hours of online multiplayer was possible, and we played as much of it as we could. In this impressions piece two of our team will tackle different areas that suit their strengths. Site editor Tom is too old and mediocre at shooting games to do the mechanics of the game justice and to 'get' the intricacies of new weapons and abilities, so he'll focus on what we could see in terms of a visual upgrade over the original and how the controls and move to Switch stack up. Our video producer Alex is a Splatoon whizz with over 400 hours(!) put into the first game, so he's going to get into the nitty gritty around those weapon loadouts.
So, let's get to it.
Tom Whitehead - Shinier Visuals and Diverse Control Options
It's easy to look at Splatoon 2 and say 'it looks the same as the first game', as our mind's eye can do funny things. Some said that about The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time 3D, evidently having not actually loaded up a Nintendo 64 to see the original with fresh eyes. The first thing I did, then, was boot up my poor abandoned Wii U to see how that 2015 release actually shaped up.
Looking at it now, the original is a tad rough but still does the system credit. In the sequel, however, the first thing that stands out are deeper colours, which are likely partly due to technical improvements but also helped by the fact the new system uses full RGB range on my TV; pretty much all Wii U games look a little sad by comparison now due to the last-gen system's lack of support in that area. One area that's not significantly different is resolution, with previous analysis of press demos in January pegging it at 720p, like its predecessor - it wouldn't surprise me if that was still the case here, as it was certainly not 1080p by my eyes.
What we did get in the demo, however, was a silky smooth performance, and based on a few runs I thought the Switch sequel was operating a little more slickly that the original. Visuals, in pushing that 60fps while also computing the real-time online splatting of surfaces, are still pretty but technically limited - anti-aliasing just isn't a factor, and background assets are extremely low resolution once again. The actual arenas and related details, though, do show sharper and more detailed assets. The ink itself, too, is richer and better looking, enough so to be noticeable when playing the two games right after each other. Whether through Nintendo's own technology or through toolsets included in the NVIDIA setup, there are stronger areas here likely related to shaders and similar features.
Basically, I reckon the game is a nice little upgrade over the original graphically, albeit not an enormous leap. Due to the gameplay style and genre, however, a focus on framerate and smooth performance was always a priority, and aside from a small number of disconnects (though some in the live chat seemed to have more problems than I did) the Testfire delivered fast-paced, smooth gameplay.
Control variations were, I feel, a highlight. To be blunt though, the Wii U was the perfect home for Splatoon thanks to its GamePad, and that synergy cannot be repeated here. The motion controls of the GamePad with the map on screen just worked, and the Switch can't do that fully due to its single-screen setup. As a result the X button is now the map instead of jump – meaning veterans no doubt accidentally brought the map up by accident a few times; warping to teammates is now done by bringing up the map and selecting a spot with the D-Pad. It's functional and makes the best of the situation, but can't quite live up to the intuition of simply tapping a spot on the Wii U's controller.
Beyond that, though, I was impressed with what Nintendo is offering in control options. By default motion controls were slower than in the Wii U game, but a menu screen in the weapon select area allowed you to adjust the sensitivity – I found that around the +2 mark matched it up to the GamePad's rapid but controllable movements from 2015. Once I made that change I felt right at home.
The Pro Controller, for me, felt perfect for Splatoon 2. I'd argue that in terms of build and ergonomics the Switch Pro Controller is a candidate for best pad of the past couple of generations, I genuinely believe it's that good. This could be a game that sees eager players put down the money for it, too, as it supports nice HD Rumble but importantly smooth, responsive motion controls (unlike its Wii U equivalent). Some like to play dual stick with motion off, but I think the speedy precision of two sticks plus the motion can't really be beaten. The Pro Controller responded well and felt great to use.
The Joy-Con in the Grip, however, was a pretty good alternative. For me, it didn't feel quite as sharp and consistent in the motion controls – they were still fine, but I had a nagging feeling they weren't quite as on the money. Perhaps it's because the game is processing the movements of two separate entities rather than one solid pad, but I just preferred 'going Pro'.
That said, I did enjoy playing in handheld mode, simply because I love the idea of playing a game like this when away from home, at an expo or wherever. I'm a player that typically uses the motion controls for relatively small aim adjustments, and as the Switch screen has a nice sharpness to it and solid viewing angles I had no issues in that regard. The game looked colourful and vibrant, the controls were absolutely fine, and I was relieved to find that was the case. I also played in Tabletop mode while using my Pro Controller. That was actually fun, even if it was just one of those 'because I can' moments.
In terms of visuals and controls, I think Splatoon 2 is shaping up well. With a Summer release currently pegged the development team will still be making tweaks and enhancements, and there's much we don't know about. The full range of online modes, the single player campaign, they're all lovely mysteries. I'm eager to learn more, though, as I finished the Testfire feeling optimistic about the game's prospects.
Alex Olney - Weapon Combos and Techniques to Die For
Splatoon made it clear from the off that it wasn't your average shooter, thanks in part to its bright, colourful and largely friendly-looking weaponry. Not to mention once you got your hands on it you could tell immediately that a Charger and a Bucket couldn't be more different. Splatoon 2 has also introduced a new contender, the Dualies, which offer a close-quarters combat option with a twist. Whilst shooting you can use the jump button (that's B, not X, remember) to roll out of harm's way or even throwing yourself deeper into the fray. This also concentrates your fire giving you a higher damage output per second, meaning you'd better master this ability if you want any kind of chance to make the most of this pair.
As far as new weapons go, they're not revolutionary at a glance, but the rolling capabilities really bust the traditional tactics from Splatoon wide open. Enemy movement was often very predictable as long as you kept a close eye on your target's surrounds and what weapon they had in their hand, but now without a moment's notice they can suddenly dart off in any direction.
And that's not the only thing that really mixes things up for online play; the Roller and the Charger both have additional functions that help to really give this entry in the series even more depth (but the Splattershot remains the bog-standard, Mario-in-Mario-Kart, entry-level choice with no bells or whistles to speak of). Gone is the oft-feared jump attack from the Roller and instead you'll actually fire a longer but much narrower wave of ink at your opponent, which gives your more range but at the cost of having to actually be accurate for a change.
The Charger on the other hand has the ability to keep a full charge for a moment if you go directly into Squid Mode, meaning you're no longer tied to the pitiful shuffle if you want to use your weapon as the sniper rifle it was born to be. These tweaks are small, but from the short time I played the game I could already tell that they're going to have a massive impact on the online experience. Not as much as the new Specials though.
We've already been told that every single Special Move from the Wii U original has been gutted (bye bye Kraken) in favour of an entirely new set of abilities. That's not to say there aren't hints of the older moves in the new ones; the Stingray for example harks back to the Killer Wail in a satisfying but arguably more practical form. Although the stream of ink is far, far smaller you can now control it as it's firing, and yes, it also travels through walls somehow.
Splashdown feels a bit like an Inkstrike in many ways, only now you don't have the luxury of choosing where this burst of ink will land. Personally I found this probably the hardest to use of all the new moves in the sense of actually doing some damage with it. The spread of the ink isn't that large, the warning the enemy gets is generous, and you can even be killed as you're attempting to perform it. The latter was possible with many other Special Moves in the past, but this is one that encourages you to really get in the fray as deep as possible. The only saving grace of this move is that you can perform it mid-Super Jump, which makes for a much more useful and badass application of this attack. Enemies don't get as much warning, and any player worth their salt will know if an enemy's Super Jump icon appears before you it'd be rude not to attempt to splat them as soon as they land, so this can be a rather effective surprise strike.
Next we have the Inkjet, which despite being apparently named after a style of printer is a very satisfying high-risk/reward weapon. You shoot up into the air on a jetpack propelled by ink shooting large, slow-moving globs of ink that explode on contact and can easily kill in a single hit. This is a real game-changer as it allows you to enter otherwise inaccessible enemy territory and really cause havoc, but once it's over you return back at the place you activated it, so bear that in mind.
And lastly we have my favourite of the new additions, the Tenta Missiles. This behaves somewhat like a personal echolocator, allowing you to see all enemy kid/squids and launch homing missiles at up to all four of them, providing you can get them in your crosshair. Whilst the enemy gets plenty of warning before these strike, it's still quite easy to miss said indicator and cause the recipient bother. Even if they do notice it forced them to move as fast as possible, potentially into a less optimal area of the map, so it's great for flushing people out.
There's also the Curling Bomb which seems to potentially be replacing the Seeker, although we don't know that for sure yet. It bounces around and causes a bit of ink damage here and there, but I never really saw it put to any really effective use so it's difficult for me to give it a fair chance in this discussion. It's all right, but it's not going to be replacing the traditional Splat Bomb anytime soon.
So, those are some of our thoughts. Share your impressions of the Splatoon 2 Global Testfire in the comments!
Comments 81
All I know is I kept opening that dumb map. I'm not sure if that's from playing Zelda or the first Splatoon.
Rollers can still do a jump attack, it's ZR+B whereas the vertical flick is B+ZR.
I kept tweaking the sensitivity a lot during the testfire, the scale seemed different from Splatoon 1 - like -2 were the 0 of the original.
For some reason I didn't have any problem using B as a jump button as it is closer to the stick like the X was in gamepad so it's logical to me. And I've put ~1500 hrs into Splatoon 1.
@Samuel-Flutter I think a few of us on here had that issue. What was up is now down lol. Still a ton of fun ...even if I was useless.
@Samuel-Flutter Oddly enough, Zelda never quite felt right with jump on X, so that was one of the first things I switch. So I felt right at home on Splatoon. I still suck though, but I can't blame the controls.
The dual-Joycon control option was the best for me. It felt like a natural evolution of Wiimote + Nunchuck controls
Like I said before, I've only played one session and that made me rather play the original when I feel like it than go out of my way (like getting up at 3:30 AM!). And after a playing just less than 10 matches of Spla2n and having rage-quitted on the original in its entirety some 18 months ago, I really do wanna play more. As soon as possible. Hope there are still some peeps online!
This doesn't mean by any sense of the word that I'd even hestitate for a mere second with a Spla2n Day One buy. It just wasn't different enough to go out of my way to get to attend these one hour sessions.
Overall, though, my ol' flame the Splat Roller is still as great as ever. Though I gotta admit that playing Zelda for 80+ hours made me press X to jump only to open the map and fall to my doom so many times. Hadn't really gotten a grasp on those new specials either. Felt too vulnerable and less flashy tbh.
@Ryu_Niiyama Oh yeah, it was definitely still fun. It didn't have that new car feeling the first Testfire had though.
@roadrunner343 I actually didn't know you could change those controls around until after I had gotten accustomed. X didn't feel right for Link to jump for me initially either. But I mainly chalk that up to jumping feeling weird in a Zelda game - period.
The jump button is wrong.
The inkjet is the most useless one. "Look here guys, shoot me! Don't worry, I can hardly move!"
Nah.
I liked the roller the best. Maybe it's just because I'm a newbie to Splatoon's gyro controls, but I found I did the most damage by getting right into the fray, rather than trying to shoot them from afar. Plus, I just found the weapon in general really fun and satisfying to use. The dualies were fun too, but I wasn't super great at using them.
Really got my butt kicked with this test fire either people have practiced hard for the last two years or I've lost my touch.
Any hay it's only going to get harder if voice chat works and creates co ordinated teams.
@Lord Yeah the Splatoon 1 player base has become hyper competitive as all the noobs and kids drained away and all that remained were the ultra hard core that have spent every day for the last two years playing that game. EVERY rank is S in that thing now, and we can guess most of the Switch preorderers with an interest in Splatoon are from that group Just be glad you didn't have to deal with the Japanese players shudder
@KirbyTheVampire Splattershot is the all purpose weapon (and was overused in the original). But the new roller is waaay better than the old rollers. It has a lot more versatility. dualies are a technical weapon. Everyone was playing them because most people playing were probably veterans of the first game that wanted to try the only truly new weapon out, and because it's a technical weapon. They're fun, but I feel they're a weapon you can only truly appreciate when you come to them already familiar with the strengths and limitations of all the original shooter weapons. Fun, but harder to get the most from them or understand how to use them to your advantage if you're just coming into the game.
Nothing wrong with loving that new roller though. I might switch from playing chargers primarily to playing roller primarily in this new one (and duelies...and I hated the normal shooters in the ifrst!)
You should not use Full RGB with a TV. That's for monitors.
Most video games are designed using the Full RGB spectrum since they are designed on computers which use that. However, when you are playing a Full RGB game and your video game console is set to Limited, it takes this into account. The video levels are shifted from 0-255 down to 16-235 and the gamma curve is adjusted to match a TV as well. You aren’t losing anything as the system is accounting for this.
@Yorumi LOL, I've been counting the seconds waiting for you to come in and mention that
Interesting question, based on an error message I got one time "Unable to connect to the other player's console", the first impulse is to say yes, it's P2P still. And it probably is. Though the matchmaking servers appear to be regional this time (which is a pretty huge expansion of the server infrastructure on its own), also a conversation elsewhere between @JaxonH and I, he pointed out that Splatoon 2 seems to be using about 1/2 the bandwidth of the original. It could be down to much more streamlined netcode, or it could be offloading the upload portion to proper servers after all, but still keeping P2P connections for additional data transfer and redundant updates.
P2P is involved, in one way or another, even if there is some additional server-side aspect going on, and regional servers is a big deal, but I guess you can gripe and complain now?
@Switchcraft A lot of new TVs do support Full these days as they're really just monitors.
That being said I'm pretty sure WiiU supported it too, you just couldn't manually select it, it relied on auto detection. I play on a monitor, and both the Switch and PS4 that let me select it appear whitewashed and faded on limited/auto, I have to manually set it to Full. Yet the WiiU only had auto but never had the whitewash look.
Thank god I'm not anal about things like anti-aliasing. I feel like I enjoy games a lot more than many of my friends because I just don't give a crap if a game doesn't have all the latest graphical bells and whistles.
After putting over 1000 hours into the first Splatoon, my primary fears were significant alterations and a lack of charm. I can say that the fear of dramatic alterations was mostly unfounded as the test fire impressed upon me a smooth progression with many practical improvements (partially due to the switch, such as more controller options). That said, I am a little concerned about the charm element... The first game was developed by people who had never played anything like it before and as such were learning about the possibilities while we were. That lead to a collection of peculiar maps and weapons with real identity even at the cost of balance.
So, for instance, it's easy to see why the new specials iterate on the old in a way that improves balance, but even as someone who despises the invincibles (Bubbler and Kraken) there was a certain charm to them. They may have broke the game by encouraging an extreme dink and dunk strategy, but they did give more players more options to be successful while also balancing out the campers and scrummers to some extent.
Also, I'm pretty sure they chose two of most basic maps for this test fire, but still these two lack an identity that each of the maps in the first game had, for better or worse. These new maps feel designed to appease the masses who preferred Walleye Warehouse, Blackbellt Skatepark, Anho-V Games, Urchin Underpass, etc... Without much of the distinctiveness of those maps. Even the surrounding landscape is less memorable and/or useful for orientation. It's possible these new maps are designed in a way that befits all modes, but I liked how some of the original naps made odd bedfellows with certain ranked modes.
I could include other examples, like the excellent music, which sounds great (even studio quality) but doesn't quite invoke the intense bouyancy of the Splatoon OST. Though really the end result remains to be seen and the game is going to be insanely fun and polished anyway...
However, I will always miss that first magical summer of Splatoon.
Oh, I should mention that my family played all 6 rounds on mobile hotspots without any significant ag or disconnects. Extremely smooth experience there. In addition, Splatoon 2 uses about half as much data as the original, which was one of the more data-hungry games I've seen.
@erv You can dodge with the Inkjet. Press B boost yourself higher for a few seconds, great for Inkjet v Inkjet dogfighting. Press and hold L do drop altitude. IIRC, you can even go full squid, then maneuver, and pop up to attack your target.
Aside from the jump button being swapped, my only complaint was the map. I hope the full game has an option to hold X down to show it and make it hide after I release. Its also not as easy to pick a target, but it may just require me to get used to it.
I liked how you could move your left stick around to distort the music in the lobby. Nice little easter egg there.
Last testfire demo was the first time I played Splatoon. I was always on the losing team because I was a punching bag for the winning team. I tried all the weapons but I got annihilated every time.
By the way, how do you perform a big jump? The instructions said press the digipad (in which direction?) and A. But it did nothing.
@zip After using jump (X) to open the map, press a direction and then press A. It will launch you to an ally or your home base depending on which direction is pushed. However it doesn't work if that ally is dead.
@Yorumi Yeah, predictable I know it's a hot button issue for you so I won't prod, I know we've been in circles with this already, but I just have to put it out there again that online costs money, and these companies were already running on planned revenue streams, and for a variety of reasons online is disruptive to the way they organize their finances based on decades of business.
Maybe online should have stayed permanently on PC and never come to consoles. I'd have loved that honestly. Some PC devs built their business models around the model there, and PC has other sources of funding that are different from the console space. These companies are dinosaurs in their models, but their models happen to provide some things we like. The 3 had their choice: Ignore online entirely (Nintendo tried that), move to online and change their overall company structure and business model to accommodate that, or try passing the costs on directly through a subscription. The all went with the latter, and the public accepted it overall.
From a business perspective when I look at what kinds of costs and disruptions are involved I can see why they preferred that route. If I try to think of what they would look like if they shifted their structures and income models to accomodate the additional cash required to run a network. These are mfr/retail based companies. They make a product for $X, they sell a product for $Y, yielding $Z revenue. PC developers moved to a service based model built around the network. Steam itself taking a cut of other devs sales to pay for the servers being the biggest example. It's a different space, different business model, and what you pay for it not in cash is paid for in lack of options. No physical options and the like, everything as a rights-free digital vapor. I want to see those PC companies with free online cranking out discs/cartridges and certification/quality programs before version 1 goes out the door.
As to if it's a scam, I haven't followed sony, but I tend to follow Nintendo. Lets look at their earnings in a year or two. Lets see how the net profits from the subscription sector line up against op costs for online. If they're reporting big profits on the subscription endeavor, then it's just another revenue stream. If not, it's just a bandaid on the gushing cash outflow that is maintaining online infrastructure.
But I'll promise not to harp on it if you promise not to flood every online subscription related thread with "But Steam" and "it's a scam" posts and try to evaluate all the financial aspects involved in running such an infrastructure.
For my money, online should have stayed on PC. I always knew online would be endless trouble on consoles, and I wasn't wrong. It's not what the joy of the platforms really is about. But the genies out of the bottle, and now would-be PC gamers are console gamers and that's what we're left with. Blame Microsoft and Dreamcast.
I can now finally say "Booyah" instead of "Nice"? That's awesome
No mention of crappy music or level design?
@crimsontadpoles I actually miss saying "Nice!"
@NEStalgia
Director "Welcome to the Nintendo Boardroom everyone.
Today's discussion - shall we make more online multiplayer games?"
Engineer " we only have so many resources to cover this! please don't overload us!"
Accountant" if we charge a small annual fee - we can safely invest in an efficient premium service that will attract more players due to it being NICE GAMING!"
Director " NICE GAMING? Sounds like if we get labelled as that - we will attack more players to our consoles and games"
Marketing guy " Not mobile players - they don't understand what NICE GAMING is" .
Programmers " If you give us more resources and funding - we can make even better games with better service"
Research guy " We have found that if you don't give gamers NICE GAMING - your reputation and income streams go down"
Marketing guy "Excluding Mobile gamers of course!"
Director "Ok! it sounds like it's settled! We shall make more and better games with better services and online practices by charging a small annual fee of about £20 and investing this into the games and services thus getting more NICE GAMING and selling more consoles! "
Result!
Little disappointed with initial returns on the new hardware, not seeing a leap in visuals for a "next gen" system, hybrid or no. Splatoon not being at least 1080p or at the very least implementing a rudimentary form of AA is concerning to say the least.
On the positive side the game was a lot of fun but I hope they do away with the map rotation system from the last game as it was frustrating to have no choice in mode or map unless you happened to have a lot of friends online.
@TeslaChippie thank you there are still true gamers out there.
@NEStalgia Hey man don't waste your time replying to him, no matter how right you are he won't budge and that's just his problem. Though you are incredibly smart and I even learned a few things about business models ha.
@JpGamerGuy90 Well, Mario Kart 8 is now 1080p/60fps (docked) compared to 720p/"59.5"fps (Wii U)... That's quite a jump!
I wouldn't use currently Splatoon as an example for several reasons. First off, it's obviously a demo so it remains to be seen what improvement or optimization will take place between now and release. More importantly, Splatoon is the kind of game that requires identical performance between undocked and docked modes. If either has even a slight hitch that will affect the competitive viability of the corresponding mode.
This means that the developers need to nail down that consistent performance before pushing the engine or optimizing for either mode. Especially to prepare for a demo such as this. The result could be that the game will see much improvement between now and release or that docked mode could be held back to provide cohesion. For example, assuming performance is equal, some would still argue that even 1080p resolution docked would be a significant advantage when aiming at long range targets over a lower resolution in portable mode.
Finally, Splatoon is a deceptively complex game well-adapted to the Wii U. So, despite Switch being substantially more powerful in almost every metric, there could be any number of significant bottlenecks in porting the engine that prevent from pushing farther due to the primary need for locked 60fps.
@Yorumi Never stated you were wrong about anything, it's just you seem to be kinda toxic about the paid subscription thing. I don't have anything against you really.
@Yorumi I get a far bettter connection speeds on my Switch compared to Wii U even using mobile hotspots, despite my system telling me I only have a one or two bar signal, it is not weak. Additionally, thus test fire was silky smooth, which is not often the case when I play Splatoon over the same signal. Something has improved whether you accept it or not.
Otherwise, you're talking a bunch of immature nonsense. We know nothing, not even price. I don't care what kind of service PSN or Xbox Live offer because I will not pay that price (especially considering the only online games I would play on those platforms are better with free online on PC). If the price is the same, you probably have a point, but if it is half or less?
Of course we all want Nintendo's online infrastructure to remain free, but those other platforms have set a new standard that the majority of people are apparently alright with. Let's just wait until we see the result before condemning the whole service as a scam.
@cfgk24 Beautiful, true poetry
@RazorThin SOME people on this site are irredeemable...I don't think Yorumi's one of them He's insanely stubborn, yes, but he's a reasonable guy beyond it I think
@Yorumi There's a few holes in your points. P2P or not, there is still a server infrastructure behind it. Security, matchmaking, account management, authentication, etc, etc, etc. There tens or hundreds of millions of dollars of server infrastructure, staff, facility fees, electrical costs, security costs, bandwidth costs, taxes atop all that. There's tons of expenses in that server infrastructure. "The cloud is free!" was a corporate pipe dream that never happened. There are not "no expenses" If you're debating if the expenses for the infrastructure match or exceed the income from the subscription, that's something we can explore in a year or two when looking at the financial summaries for Nintendo. June/July 2018 is a good time to look into that. We can compare Sony or Microsoft now, but they have too many blended finance streams to make heads or tails of anything and they like it that way. Nintendo's a lot clearer to read cost absorption.
But if you're arguing there's no expenses in network infrastructure that's patently false. There's MASSIVE expense there, even supporting the P2P system. There's no argument that can be made that "X platform owner operating an online-free console has no more expenses than X platform owner operating an online console."
Further with PC you're venturing into odd territory. Are you actually comparing the business model of F2P PC indies against the worlds biggest game publisher and platform owner? Are those F2P indies solvent for long term financial stability? Will they be around 20, 30, 40 years from now? That's a WHOLE different business, and not always as forward-thinking. Also who owns their "free" servers, who operates them, are they using any privately hosted server software and donated bandwidth? It's such a very different space. You have to compare a company with Nintendo's business model and existing fee structure against how the introduction of online services affects their cash flow, and the varying ways they could adapt to absorb/offset those costs. A studio of 20 young people, a passion for the art, and a lack of commitment to generating sigificant revenue for reinvestment can't be compared to a large corporation with thousands of staff with studios on every continent, of all variying ages, and a significant commitment to financial stability. If you're going to compare PC games, then compare those from companies of comparable expense, Ubisoft, EA, Activision, Warner Interactive, 2K Games, THQ Nordic, Square-Enix, Capcom, Sega, etc. I think your war may not be over PC freeness versus console "scams" but big hearted indies with a love of the art versus corporate publishers.
Third parties, the above mentioned third parties DO get a significant cut of royalties. They're in fact one of the driving forces behind the need for royalties to begin with. Again, your argument is indie vs. corporate, not PC vs console.
"The price of making a game is covered in the cost of the game, so it doesn't matter that they print carts."
No, not always. The price of making a game is covered if sales of the game meets the estimated requirements of needed sell-through at the MSRP. Or the price is covered by that estimated needed sell-through plus the estimated DLC sales. If any of those estimates fall through, the game sold at a loss. And that loss needs to be made up somewhere. Add in online and ongoing expenses (yes, ones again there ARE significant expenses) and how much of a loss is a low-selling game? As production values go up, the cost, and therefore the required sell-through go up as well. Hired a famous voice actor? Add another $500k. That's another 8000 copies you need to sell to break even, and you're not in the business to break even. Added another layer of hack detection as you sift through the gameplay data? How many servers, how much bandwith now many employees monitoring the logs for abnormalities, what is their pension, healthcare, water consumption from flushing toilets at the building? EVERYTHING costs money, and the more they spend, just to make the same general annual profit as last year they need to make that much more money. To please investors (required) they need to make MORE than that. So where do you propose they absorb the significant costs of online, including hardware, bandwidth, staff, taxes, etc?
Again, we can look at the financials after this has been around for half a year, and again after it's been around for a year. Jun/Jul 2018 gives us a peek. Jun/Jul 2019 answers your question in full. Pretending there are no expenses involved is just stinking your head in the sand.
I think you have a misconception of what "P2P gameplay" does and doesn't involve despite trying to explain it to everyone. Just because player data goes between users (in this case we don't know for sure that it's ONLY that and that there's not ALSO some portion that's server site, but we'll assume you're right on that just to be safe...a reduction in data from the first game is interesting.) That still ignores account management, security, staff, authentication, matchmaking, and SOME portion of gameplay data that obviously goes through their systems otherwise their hack detection would not be as good as it is. And it ignores the staff required to run it. Somehow everyone rules out the expense of employees in all this.
Your central argument revolves around the belief that there is no actual infrastructure maintained by Nintendo/Sony/Microsoft which is simply untrue.
And if you're right and the subscription doesn't plug any cost gaps or get reinvested into the system and it's just a profit engine, we'll see that on the financials. it's a public company, they can't hide these things. It will be a line item of not specifically stated to investors no less. If it is not, you will know that subscriptions are not being used as a source of income growth and are indeed a solution for closing expenses. You'll get your answer in black and white eventually once the numbers are in to analyze it.
I don't mind you being upset about paying for online or your thinking it's a bad value, but seriously, please stop regurgitating the flat out lie in every related thread about paying for nothing or there not being any infrastructure at all. I don't dislike you at all, but that repeated statement of complete lies like it's some kind of indoctrination camp isn't going to benefit anyone, and makes you come across pretty troll-like. I'm quite certain Nintendo/Sony/Microsoft WISHES you were right and they had no expenses relating to this, but that doesn't make that dream a reality for them or for you.
I'm wondering if it was P2P or not, because during my final game everyone disconnected one by one as the server was turned off. Surely if it was P2P it would have allowed us to finish the match?
My overall impression is that it's little more than an expansion pack for Splatoon 1. That's not necessarily a bad thing; if you've got a winning formula, stick with it! Of course, we'll have to wait and see what kind of extra content you get in the full game, and I'll certainly be buying it.
Was great.
Connections were smooth, no disconnects, no lag... I even played with a hotspot from my phone at work which BLEW MY MIND. I just realized I'm gonna be playing Splatoon 2, Mario Kart 8, Ultra Street Fighter II, (hopefully Monster Hunter!) online anywhere I want.
Ya, Splatoon 2 isn't just a sequel, it's a sequel that can be played anywhere, even online, with same graphics and HD resolution and real controllers in hand (and split Joycons is where it's at, believe me)
It took me till the 4th hour before I stopped instinctively hitting the X button. I actually found it impossible to use the analog stick on the right Joy-Con while having my index finger up on the shoulder buttons, so I was forced to either play with motion controls on the handheld standing up so I could turn my body in circles instead of using the stick or use the more ergonomic Pro controller. I liked the Splashdown and it was fun to use it against groups of enemies camping out on one of my teammates trying to Super jump to me by pretending to run away and then come back just in time to splat the lot of them all crowded together.
I had to look it up. I can only play splatoon in like 45 minute bursts. Needs more maps available daily and to be able to have longer matches. That being said, I was surprised I had 140 hours logged on Wii U. Played four of the test fires and I can't wait for splatoon2. It at least gave me a few hour break from Zelda this weekend. Today I spent 2 hours swimming ponds for a fish...
I really hope they announce a concrete release date soon.
It had HD Rumble? Felt just like regular rumble to me. Maybe they overhyped it but the presentation boasted the feeling of ice cubes in water being replicated, so I was expecting to feel the level of ink in my tank sloshing about in my controller and kick back on the guns etc. But then I've heard people say the same of Fast RMX and honestly whilst it felt different it didn't feel special.
It's making me want to buy 1-2-Switch just so I can feel those marbles rolling around to see what the fuss is about.
All that aside I really enjoyed the test fire. No issues in docked or undocked modes despite only ever getting 2 bars wifi on my Switch.
I'm still wondering about that Ink rain we saw before. There was no sign of it in the demo so I dont think it was a special or anything. Starting to think it's a "weather" effect that occurs naturally during battle. Or it could be a new mode. Interesting...
I'll say I was impressed with everything Splatoon 2 had to offer, and I could honestly talk your ears off as to why. But I'll just say that not only did I never feel like I was being splatted unfairly (can't even count the amount of times where I'd been killed by ink that didn't even look like it had touched me) but the controls, the visuals and even the gear looked like a step up from the first.
I'm especially happy about the new specials as the Bubbler and Kraken's invincibility was really overpowered and led to more frustration than enjoyment. At least these specials don't guarantee getting kills for free - you've got to put much more thought into when and how they're all used.
I didn't quite get the hang of Splashdown but I seemed to love using every other special. The curling bomb never landed me any kills but they certainly landed their fair share of kills on me - so I can say for certain that it's an effective sub weapon.
I didn't have any connection issues, unless we're counting other people's faulty connections. But Nintendo can't fix that... Otherwise it was smooth and sleek, just like the visuals.
Speaking of the visuals, everything seemed to pop and sparkle, giving me a sense that the game really was built from the ground up for Switch. I'm not very proficient in this area so I can't really give anything solid but I certainly felt that Splatoon 2 is a world away from Splatoon. It was all just so compelling.
Can't wait till the full game's release!
I only played one round on the first day the testfire was available. It was pretty fun, but for some reason I didn't seem to have the option to turn off the motion controls or I couldn't figure it out as the options were grayed out? So I hated having to tilt the Switch to look up and down.
Apparently Dual Joy-Con Style (with motion enabled) was the best way to play.
@Ogbert I didn't play the Test Fire, but I got 1-2 Switch yesterday, and I have to say I was impressed by how well the JoyCon could convey balls rolling around in a box. I'm not 100% sure how HD Rumble will be utilised in future games, but if it can create realistic-isn sensations like that I'm pretty excited.
I really wish this game was 1080p with anti-aliasing. The jaggies are too noticeable even on my meager 32" HDTV. It almost look like a 3DS game. This was my biggest complaint about the first Splatoon too. I don't normally complain about visuals, but they stand out with Splatoon more than any other Nintendo game that I can think of. It will still be lots of fun of course, the first one was one of my favorite Wii U games. Also: I depise the motion controls (as usual), so glad they can be turned off.
@Samuel-Flutter
Same XD
One thing i would say is once I got used to the difference in controls is the jump map wasn't that bad. I didn't use the d-pad though I used the motion controls to quickly highlight a player and pressed A to jump. Seemed just as quick as having to look down at the pad in splatoon 1 IMO. Though I suppose people who didn't like motion wouldn't of used that method.
A pathetic pedantic search to find Switch improvements by Nintendo Life Staff. First of all you don't need to make up crap and technical lies to claim Switch has a superior version.
First thing is everyone knows Switch is 2x more powerful but making up lies such as the RGB difference is only making Nintendo fans, journalists and sites look entirely STUPID and THICK.
ISSUE:
1) if you adjust your TV when using limited range RGB you will see NO DIFFERENCE, and then adjust it back to standard settings for full RGB. Infact this has only become a BIG ISSUE with Nintendo gamers/sites and clueless journalists trying to call a Switch win when they can't find anything else.
2) You compare Zelda 64 to Zelda 3D - N64 to 3DS is a massive technical leap in power ie over one decade of tech difference - Ocarina of Time 3DS was only TROLLED - everyone who played it noticed the big jump but complimented on how tastefully it was done - again a point taken completely out-of context. The jump from Wii U to Switch is many, many times smaller. Switch games will NEVER look 10 years more advanced than Wii U games. Switch games will in general be in the Wii U ballpark albeit in higher resolution.
RANT OVER.
I hope in the full game we're able to swap X and B (this is literally an option in Breath of the Wild), I'm so used to the old Splatoon that I kept accidentally bringing up the map when I meant to jump. I've played much too much of the original game that X as jump is imprinted into my fingers, plus it just feels more natural anyway. Beyond that, the lack of a second screen is a bit of a hindrance in Splatoon 2, its still a fun game, but quick jumping isn't nearly as intuitive or quick now. It will no doubt end up costing me a few lives in the future and it will undoubtedly frustrate me.
Honstly i love splatoon and would love to get the swicth but my only probelm is the control setup and where the sticks are i hate it
First of all, Link's jump was changed to B the moment I started playing. Second, having B be jump right above the analog stick for SPLA2OON is perfect. Third, I liked the music and stages from the first Splatoon's test fire better.
Is there an option for southpaw controls this time? I had such a hard time with the last game, kinda wish all console had the xbox accessories app where you can just program the control however you like.
@SMW Actually, almost all buttons did something in the lobby. Left stick altered the speed, left stick messed with the treble, left face buttons added high pitched "voice" samples, right face buttons added low pitched samples, and ZR added more of that bell tone.
I feel like the specials are really balanced this time around. For instance, Splashdown might seem a little useless, but it turns out you can hit Inkjet users with it if they're above you. At the same time, Inkjet users have control over their altitude, so in theory they can dodge it. Also, the best use I found for Splashdown is to roll some of your home turf to charge it up, then Super Jump into a dangerous place and use it.
To me this looks this great fun. Now if only I got a switch...
@Yorumi dude no-one really cares what you think. That's not a dig at you, just that people tend to already have their mind made up. That being said, you could come off a little less whining/complainy when you post stuff. You are free to disagree with Nintendo charging for online, stating that it is peer to peer without evidence of that (I.E. the service hasn't even rolled out yet nor are they charging you for it yet) isn't anything that anyone wiahes to listen to. You do come off as a troll, just because there is always a negative connotation to what you say. I mean I don't really care what you say, I read up on stuff and make up my own mind. Heck I don't even have a Switch yet.
@ThatNyteDaez Rainmaker is a new mode
This resolution stuff = stop https://www.google.ca/amp/www.digitaltrends.com/home-theater/720p-vs-1080p-can-you-tell-the-difference-between-hdtv-resolutions/amp/
I've stuck with the Roller in the original so glad to hear it's still great in Spla2oon.
This, though, looks promising. Though, I never owned the original, though, nor a WU, though, I saw it action. My friend, though, let me played his, though, and though I struggled, though, I liked it, though. One thing, though, there's way too many unnecessary uses of though, though. Just saying, though!
@NEStalgia I'm definitely a hyper competitive player of the first one. I have over 1380 hours in.
My sole reason I will buy the switch is for Solution 2. Haha
You're 100% correct that those left playing are good.
anyone heard that the publisher for lego city undercover is forcing us to download the rest of the game even if you buy the physical copy its aload of bs.
@Yorumi You're not wrong about p2p connections existing but you're wrong about paid subscriptions. Not every game on the Switch will use p2p. Some will use servers. Some won't. Call of Duty still uses that horrible lobby system instead of dedicated servers when Battlefield has been doing that for ages. The way Switch will play online depends on the developers, and what's Nintendo supposed to do? From the rumor price it's an incredible deal, and will market the Switch to an advantage compared to PS4 and Xbox One with their crazy priced subscription models. I already pay subscriptions for Photoshop and other services so I don't really care about an additional one for Switch online play.
Only an these images show the test fire off half the time I tried jumping.
https://twitter.com/Icn64/status/845920477000470528/photo/1
@Sonicaze I would say that it's less about resolution and more about pixel density these days. 1080p can look amazing on a screen but if it's a huge TV then it won't look very good. The Switch screen looks great because it's small enough where 720 or 1080 isn't really a large visible difference. 4K is gaining momentum because 1080p on a 80 inch TV looks like garbage, and also when you're sitting inches away from a computer monitor that 4K can give an advantage.
@Ogbert I didn't notice any HD rumble either. I would really like to try it. Its too bad there's no demo for 1-2 Switch or even a free game/app that lets you test out the hd rumble.
I personally think that one of the worst things about the original Splatoon was the balancing... it was great at the start, but the more weapon types they added post-launch, the more rebalancing the game needed, and they never seemed to get that right.
Hopefully all of the weapon types will be in this game and balanced from the start in order to avoid a repeat of this.
So here is a full switch game, no port or remaster, that can still only perform as well as the wii u...Are people finally going to start listening to me when i say the Switch is just a portable wii u in terms of performance? I doubt it,
I'll just sit here and wait for the inevitable "The switch is four times as powerful as Wii U!". Yeah, on paper But you show me a Switch game that looks four times as good as anything on Wii U. I'll wait...
I didn't get a chance to give this a try, just a quick question:
playing with the joy con(s) can you aim pointing, like in any shooting game for Wii, or you still have to tilt the thing?
Thanks
the game really needs a dual stick + motion control.
the current 1½ stick + motion is really annoying, i have difficulty aiming vertically all the time because I'm expecting the camera to respond to the right stick when i push it up or down.
going dual stick without motion is not an option for me either because I'd completely lose precision, so i wouldn't be able to hit the broad side of a squid with anything other than a roller.
@Yorumi
Hi, I know exactly what you mean about the online being a scam as there is no difference. I think you have to look at the whole business model for Nintendo and the fact they are following the others by kind of doing the same thing. Maybe pushing profits to the online charges rather than making it on the console works out better for those tax exemptions or something.
But being a Nintendo only gamer paying for this stuff is new and annoying to me too, and it doesn't sit any better for me when you keep mentioning the fact that I'm paying for the same thing I got for free!! But I'll pay it because like my wife will tell you I open my wallet for Nintendo far more than for her!!!
@SMW exactly! I had the same thought, since we are no longer just glancing down at another screen that map does need to be hold X, it's there/release X, it goes away.
@Yorumi I'm not putting Nintendo in a special box, I was listing all 3 consoles issues under that umbrella. If you want to look at any of the 3 companies that's doing it purely for profit, look at Microsoft, who started it, who operates under the stated goal of being a Cloud Company First, and XBox is tasked with forming synergies with their overarching corporate objectives. OTOH, if you're going to argue that the cost of games covers costs, etc, etc, you might want to take a look at XBox. Even with being the pioneer of the most overpriced subscription, the XBox division is STILL hemorrhaging cash. They have lost money hand over fist, year on year since the OG XBox, and a premium subscription has yet to pull them into the black. If it's a long term strategy it's a VERY long term strategy. It's hard to call it greed if they're still LOSING money. Nint and Playstation are not losing money, and I imagine they'd not like to start.
Steam can NOT be factored into this at all. They're a RETAILER, not a publisher/developer. Once, they were a developer, they still maintain their handful of games, loosely. They're not a platform owner (despite their failed ventures to become one) they don't have a vast company to operate, they don't take any risks...basically at all, they just process orders, skim the fees off, and run the servers that make it all happen. Different business that can provide different value, via different internal cost structres. Also don't forget Steam is not a public company. Let Gabe take it to IPO and see how the profit priorities change? Don't like how investors drive public companies? Neither do I. Neither do most people. Heck, neither do most CEOs. It's the catch 22, if you need the capital to invest in something like designing the Switch and huge games like BotW, Horizon, Halo, you need the investment funds that come from public trading, but then you lose control of your profit priorities. Steam Machine never got off the ground. With investor money had he gone public it might have, maybe it would have replaced Xbox. But then you'd find Steam charging quite a bit more for everything to please investors, too. It's a trade-off, and when the tradeoff is so bad that Nintendo/Sony/MS products no longer have value compared to their competitors, then they'll vanish. It's not a matter of liking or disliking that, that's just the reality. As a business you gamble your soul (and your control) for the money you need to do what you're trying to do. After you do, your customers pay for it. For that matter, though, the only thing Steam has going for it is it's a bargain. If it kills off it's own competition, watch the prices soar!
Oh, Nintendo could certainly pay for all that using ads. I don't think anyone wants ads in our game products. If you DO want ads, might I suggest Microsoft who gives you ads AND a subscription AND still loses money! I'd much rather pay than be spied on with ads. I pay for all my Android software to ditch the ads. I'm not sure I'd consider the way most advertising works as "pro-consumer". Value-driven, yes. "pro-consumer" very much, no.
Which MMO is being funded with 1% buying cosmetic items? What's the install base, and what's the average purchase amount among that install base? Those are important numbers, though it describes the "whale model" often used in mobile F2P. But it depends on a MASSIVE install base, and fairly decent purchases by a small amount of people to pay for everyone. Nintendo/Sony/MS don't actually have an install base on that scale.
Amazon, NL, BB etc, again is a different thing. Actually, again, Amazon has never made a dime. Not on the store (cloud services is another thing), they lose money. investors gripe at Bezos for it, but they KNOW that what is happening is, through years and years of losses it's cornering the market. The day Amazon has crushed and cornered the market, they can charge ANYTHING. Investors stay in waiting for that day. NL is ad funded, something we do NOT want in our games. Also, I strongly doubt given my experience in the field that NL is exactly paying it's employees corporate benefits and wages. Wanna ask Damo and Tom what their pensions and insurance look like from NL? Think it compares to what the IT staff at Nintendo are getting? A company that's a lousy employer that provides high value to consumers isn't necessarily a better thing than a great employer that provides a product people are willing to pay for. Everybody wants everything for free, yet everyone wants to work for the company that's "greedy."
BestBuy, Steam, GOG, etc, etc are retailers that are making money by charging premiums on the products they sell over the cost they paid to acquire and deliver them. Which is precisely what Nintendo is (claming) to do. Why not demand Best Buy sell you something at cost? Maybe they paid $40 a unit for a Switch game. Add in costs of taxes, employees, keeping the lights on and the store heated, and it's up to $50....and you won't pay a penny more! It can be like bartering!
Best But, Amazon, Nintendo of course all have a tax bracket WAAAAAY higher than Steam, GOG, NL etc. That has to be factored in as well. Can't forget to pay Uncle Sam for selling those games! The bigger the company the more he'll devour! Steam can sell you a $60 game and give $40 back to the publisher, give Uncle Sam his $5 and pocket the $15 to provide those free servers. The bigger companies, nope, $10-15 go back to DC, so they get to keep their $5-10 for those "free" servers.
Oh, but then we forgot the healthcare liabilities of a big company! Can't let those big giants not pay their "fair share"! The little ones can get by on a little less, but oh dear, the big companies should be paying into that more since they have so much excess money.
How DARE they try to close those gaps by charging more for things than their nimbler competitors can. We should slap higher taxes on them as a punishment! Down to $2 profit a game you go!
And now we want better looking games and we want them optimized to run 60fps and we want them longer with more content all for the same $60 we paid pre-inflation 20 years ago while the staff to make them costs more and more per person the expenses to run facilities cost more every year and taxes are post-inflation cutting the actual income per game to shreds (or defecits) and we want them online with servers, with patches, with DLC (for free!) and updates and content and events and those servers had better not go down or get hacked! The money has to come from somewhere, and we're down to griping at $20-40/yr for costs that in reality for people who buy a lot of games are probably worth more than that.
Look, I get what you're saying, and I understand from a consumer perspective you'd rather get something for free than pay for it, and you found a competitor that found a pricing structure that works for them that they can offer a better value on a particular service. That's great, that's what competition is for. And I'd rather keep costs low too. It just drives me crazy when otherwise intelligent people start with a mentality of entitlement without taking a step back and looking at the VEEERY big picture as to all the moving parts involved about where all the inlets and outlets of money come from where costs are, without looking at all perspectives. There's a valid discussion around if it represents fair value, or if it will represent fair value to enough people to be viable, or even if the price is disproportionate to the return. But the whole "it costs nothing to run, other companies can do it!" argument is so lopsided in ignoring so much reality it's really really dishonest to keep flogging that line. You're painting a very incomplete picture of what's involved for all parties.
Again, you'll get your answer in black and white for all to see in the YE'18 and/or YE'19 reports. you'll see if they're netting gains on the online or not. You'll see where operating costs sit. If they're reporting gains from online as a business venture, then yes, they're profiting from it and you have a point. If they're not reporting gains from online and are glossing over it as a blended expense it means they're still losing from it and are just plugging the hole so the bleeding doesn't look TOO bad. Microsoft glosses over XBox as a whole but likes to promote XBLA because they can spin it as a spoke in their wheel of cloud services as a corporate mantra. Even if it does't come close to plugging the hole of the rest of the division.
@onex Nice! I'll have to try the rest out on the full game.
@Yorumi You're still looking at it from a perspective of making far too many assumptions about the specifics of the network infrastructure and what's involved however. We already know for certain that there is more involved in the servers than simple matchmaking. Hack/cheat detection is very existent on Nintendo (on games they're supporting, not games that are out of support like MKWii), if there is no game data but match making flowing through Nintendo, that would not be possible. I'm not saying it's not P2P, but I'm saying there's more going on behind the scenes that you're not taking into account here. No doubt the same applies to Sony and MS. And remember the subscription isn't just about servers but also the ongoing maintenance and updates to the games that are online. This is how they choose to pay for the now common model of supporting a game after launch. Their past pricing structure was based on "once it goes gold, all expenses stop fully." They still need to rely on that model because that's how they structured the business. New expenses then require new payment.
So again, we can't roll it all into "well they only run matchmaking and that takes no money", it's clear they're doing more than that, but we don't (and won't) know what exactly. We CAN know the operating costs from the financials though. And we can claim that 100% of the costs are just about the servers and staff, but also ongoing game support that previously did not occur with a retail title. We'd probably not be looking at online fees for any console if consumers supported $80-$100 games. But they don't, but seem to support this. If the companies could get away with it they'd do both, sure.
On that second part, the first question is: IS all multiplayer locked? I.E. could an indie developer choose to make a game that reaches out to its own servers or is it required to use Nintendo's authentication/matchmaking servers? If the former, then it's not locked it's developer choice. if it is locked, then the answer is it's using Nintendo resources. It can't be locked that you MUST authenticate Nintendo subscriptions but then don't use Nintendo's network. I'm not sure what their model is regarding indies, and we'd need someone who is a licensed Nindie to comment on that, but that would probably be under NDA. As for the big publishers, a absolutely guarantee you they ARE getting a cut of those subscription royalties and getting cuts of those royalties were a condition for 3rd party support at all. EA/Acti/Ubi's not running free servers any more than Nintendo is. If Inti-Creates is REQUIRED to authenticate Nintendo subcription status or not, I don't know. Same for PSN/XBLA, I'm not sure what the indie policies are there, nor do I know if any of those three are leveraging console mfr network resources for said games.
Here's a batter idea: Don't play online games. Period. Full stop. You don't have to worry about subscriptions, you don't have to worry about them taking the games away, you don't have to worry about them killing the servers. Indie games on PC have third party servers and donated bandwidth. Yay. And everything on PC is digital only and can be taken away from you anyway. Are we really down to which "license" we have that we have no rights to offers us more of our rights until we don't have them? So with Nintendo you get a physical game you have a right to keep but don't have a right to play online unless you pay up (but you can still play single player), and on PC you have unlimited free play (until they kill the servers, because, oh well) until they decide to revoke your license to the install. There are no winners here with "digital rights" no matter which platform we're talking about. That ship sailed 20 years ago when everyone was going on about convenience, and to be blunt, people like you who adore Steam were the spearhead of that assault on digital rights. That's outside the "paying for nothing" topic, but if you're going to make it a digital rights issue, aim for slime-weasel Gabe first of the bunch.
Aside from the digital rights part (that's a stretch), we're down to you still don't believe that server capacity/support and ongoing game support costs money. You're convinced that because free/mobile games can operate on the whale model all games should operate on the whale model and that it's economically viable for all games to do so, and that's pretty much the bulk of it.
At this point I wish this could be a feature story with various industry/indie leaders weighing in on the costs of operating the infrastructure. You have a very fixed view on the costs and your assumptions of what's involved and it doesn't account for all situations. Comparing small indie firms to large companies is never going to have parity. There are some things small companies do better and cheaper, some things big companies do better and cheaper.
From a starting point there has to be a point of agreement that adding online infrastructure and the man-hour costs of maintaining and supporting that including extended support for games with a fully paid staff (also note that nearly all Nintendo development is done in Japan or US/EU subsidiaries and not contracted out to 3rd world sewers for the low labor costs...that drives up costs right there.) So once we can establish that point of agreement on costs, all we're left with is how to pay for that? The only 3 obvious options are subscriptions for the games that use that, increasing the sticker price of the base product, or whale model.
The second is very rejected by consumers. I favor a higher base fee than recurring costs, but I'm in the minority of consumers I fear. The latter only works if you have a massive install base from which to milk. Nintendo, outside Wii Sports doesn't have a massive install base of anything. Neither does Sony or MS. Which leaves only the former. Or not making online games at all. Which Nintendo tried and everyone demanded they get with the times. So they did.
When factoring in unit sales of software on Steam vs Nintendo/Sony/MS as well, keep in mind the former has removed the entire expense of manufacture, warehousing, and distribution from their supply chain entirely. That eats into the unit sales for the same $60 software unit, as does resale of physical copies. As a fan of digital rights, I don't mind those costs as it does entitle my ownership of what I paid for. But that's less sheer on the top profit to pay for the continued expenses of online as well. Maybe if physical had vanished entirely and console went all digital 10 years ago like PC, the subscriptions wouldn't have happened. We'd also not actually own anything we paid for. Like PC.
@Danpal65 yeah I was excited for it when they announced it but so far nothing has shown me what it can do. Not that it's the only reason I bought a Switch or anything, it wasn't. Hopefully something will show me it's true power soon.
@dok5555555 there's is a strong argument that 1-2-Switch should have been that title. I don't think you could do a demo as all the games are so short. But I would have thought the UI would have used it or something. Like when the console powers on/unlocks.
@Yorumi There's a lot of people, myself included, on this site that understand how these things work. As for wireshark, ok if that proved across all games that no data ever transmits to Nintendo for any reason, then there's proof.
As for "Since the Wii launched", take a look at when Nintendo went public. It all comes down to the costs of being a publicly traded company. It was Yamauchi's personal company through the N64 era, and the transition began in the GCN era, final by the Wii era. You're still at war with the cost necessities of a public company. I don't disagree with you there, but it's also unfair to rail against those realities as though you're special and the realities of their world don't exist. If you want it "fixed" you want them to buy back their stock. Not going to happen, even Iwata shot down that idea directly - they need the funding for hardware.
Again (for the third time) when you get to look at their financials, be sure to come back and tell us if they're producing a profit on subscriptions or if that's getting absorbed into greater expenses. It's not magic. Your whole argument is that they're doing this to turn a profit. If they are not turning a profit on the subscription then what happens to your argument? What if it's an alternate revenue stream to pay down the ever increasing dev costs in conjunction with the expenses of online infrastructure (which does exist, whether you believe it costs money or not?) Splatoon, MK8 has no "season pass" like COD, NFS, Battlefield etc which is their version of a per-game subscription wrapped in the feel good blanket of DLC.) $60 per copy is worth LESS than $60 a copy 15 years ago and the games cost MORE to make. Add online on top of it which is an ongoing cost that also reduces new game sales due to the ongoing play of that game, every single major studio has wrestled with that same problem.
Understanding network communications doesn't equate to understanding business, money, costs, and profits You STILL have yet to look at the whole picture. From EVERY angle. I'm not trying to be belligerent about it but if you're going to be so vocal about it you have to at least try to see EVERY angle and understand EVERY party's perspectives.
Again, I'll say that online gaming was massively disruptive to the established business models and they're trying to grapple with costs. Not just the server fees, and ongoing development but also the reduced sales of individual games where people would play 5 different games a year, and now they buy one or two online games (that then incur more costs.) Op costs, reduced revenues, increased production value. If they're charging the same price of admission where is the extra money supposed to be coming from in your view?
@Yorumi Again, I'm including Sony and Microsoft in with this, not just Nintendo, just using Nintendo as the most primary example here. Nintendo's late to this party, the last arrival in fact.
It's not a matter of "pro-consumer" or "anti-consumer" and I really hate both those phrases, business needs to be symbiotic in both directions to work. But it's not a matter of either one. What are their costs, what are their expenses, what is their income, and how can they adjust for increases or decreases in either? That's basic business. You don't like their solution to it, fine, you like another solution they didn't go with better, fine, nothing wrong with that. But that's different than pretending they don't have to find a way to increase income to cover expenses, and that doing so isn't guaranteed raw-profiteering.
Though what's "anti-consumer" can be viewed differently to different people. If they raised game costs $5, or $10 across the board (probably causing declining sales needing more increases elsewhere) it would hurt ME as a consumer more as I buy a lot of single player games, and would cost me more than the subscription. So what's pro-consumer for my buying habits might be different than what is for you. Is there one right answer?
It seems like you like the whale model, which is fine and successful....but does any Nintendo game have the size of player base for the money to work out on that? Short of Pokemon anyway (where Go uses the whale model.)
I'm all for consumers standing up for better quality/value and for competition. But it doesn't do any good when consumers just "demand" things without respect for costs/income either, when demands are unaligned with reality consumers just end up getting further ignored. That's fine if we want a different solution for US but it has to jive with what creates an outcome that works for them as well.
As for investors and the forces pushing on Nintendo, Sony, Microsoft, Ubisoft (poor Ubisoft, they have it the worst of all with Vivendi barking down their door), that's a whole different conversation entirely, but from a Nintendo perspective (along with all these others) we DO have to keep in mind that the investors are ALL that matters, and that's legally enforced. So the symbiosis has to be the company giving its customers what we want in a way they can pass off to investors as being in their own interest. Thats a delicate tightrope to walk in any company, and those that manage to do it very well deserve major respect. Most cave to the most powerful group, the investor. Iwata was a treat to watch how he worked investors. Kimishima's more business as usual.
Long-term, Nintendo is a collection of individuals. As long as those individuals remain they'll keep pushing for that middle ground. As soon as those individuals leave (Miyamoto, Koizumi, Tezuka, Takeda, Takahashi, Aonuma, etc) then, yes, Nintendo will be a soulless entity like Disney and Sony.
@Yorumi And again you're not providing numbers or are only drip feeding them. Ok, so it works on populations as small as 50k. Based on what amount of sales per user, based on a development staff of what sized and based on a game that cost how much to make? NUMBERS. We need numbers. A game that cost $1.2 million for 20 people to make isn't the same as a game that cost $400million for 800 people to make let alone continued support for it. It's not JUST the servers (I was arguing that point because you keep talking about how they cost nothing at all and don't even exist) it's the whole ecosystem. Dev costs, server costs, continued development, disruption to overall cashflow caused by the rise of the online games in general and that ongoing support etc.
I get this feeling you are NOT comparing this to a game with the costs that EA, and other major publishers are spending. Are you comparing this to indie games? And if so are you comparing to indie games with a staff of thousands and very high costs (and employment costs?) Are you comparing this to people making a full-time life-time career out of it? ( as Nintendo, Sony, MS employees are) or people working fly by night paycheck to paycheck until they grow up and need real jobs? (Not that EA counts in that area....)
I know you don't care about the business aspects of it, but are you comparing apples to apples? You can't look at these things without looking at the business aspect. Nothing you've said has indicated you're really considering the business aspects of a video game company beyond "I saw other companies that made a game with less money so they all should have the same cashflow!"
@Yorumi Once again you keep saying I'm treating Nintendo specially and I keep telling you I'm talking about all 3 console companies, not just Nintendo. I'm just using them as the primary example, but the same applies to all 3.
No matter what I say your argument comes back to the same 3 repeated talking points. You're not actually discussing any of the issues I've brought up, you just keep parroting your catch phrases on the matter.
I'm not justifying anything, I told you last time we discussed it that I have no horse in this race, I don't care, subscription, no subscription, doesn't matter to me. What I do take issue with is you constantly posting the fallacy in thread after thread that "it's a scam" and "there are no servers at all!" it's a patently false statement in both cases and just as you feel someone needs to hold the companies to task on their "scam" someone needs to hold you to task for repeating false statements.
Unless you DO have numbers that prove there are no costs whatsoever related to online. If so you might want to book a flight to Kyoto in late June. If that's too far, I think Microsoft is holding their shareholders meeting in July so you can just skip on over to Redmond. They would pay handsomely for a keynote from you informing them that in fact they haven't incurred any costs at all relating to online gaming and that the staff supporting continued game development and network services have, in fact, working for free for the past decade. Be sure to buy some stock in large volume in advance, it'll go through the roof!
You're saying I don't have the numbers. I've said numerous times you can get the numbers, for all THREE companies. For results you'll need to wait a little over a year, maybe a little over two (to see a full 4 quarters of Nintendo's subscription results) but you can look at Sony and Microsofts results right now! No need to wait! Look at the online subscription line items. Decide if that looks like a profit engine or a cost recovery revenue stream. You don't need me or anyone else on a forum to get the information that's directly tied to the claims you're making. You're asserting claims about costs based on a theory you have on the technology involved not based on the business involved without actually verifying if your claims are correct. It's the intellectual equivalent of the people that claim "Product Acme costs $12 to make based on this parts break down, but they charge $20, it's a rip-off!" without factoring in the costs to actually manufacture it, pay the supply chain, run the factory, transport the goods, pay the markup to retailers who have to pay inventory staff and cashiers and the electric company, etc. etc. etc." The cost to provide a product or service isn't limited to the material cost of the base level of the product. In the case of "Product Acme" the parts that make the physical product, in the case of online services it's the server,s bandwidth, staff (internal, external, support contracts with OS/analytics/security vendors, etc. etc, ongoing dev costs, lost revenue due to online games being played longer etc. )
I'm not using that to legitimize or deligitimize the value or necessity of a subscription. I'm using that to deligitimize your base argument that there "are no associated costs with online at all that need to be made up in some way." That base is simply wrong, and that is just a sampling of the myriad of reasons why. And as long as your argument against subscriptions is based on false claims and assumptions, it actually legitimizes the validity of the subscription.
There are arguments to be had against it, but yours is not among them.
So lets get back to SPECIFIC comparisons. "Every other game company on earth" So lets pick a few samples? What companies, with what games? What's their revenue scheme, and on what size player base do they monetize it?
Lets even forget Nintendo. Lets use Microsoft's XBox division as our point of comparison against those companies. There's a company running the "scheme" which is a "scheme" because they have no expenses at all relating to online. They have lost money every year consecutively since they started that line of business. "Every other company on earth has paid for free servers!" Ok...so, how is Microsoft not paying for free servers, charging for non-existent servers, and STILL Losing money running the XBox business despite this lack of expenses they seem to have? Something doesn't add up here. Either they're hiding a vast trove of profits from this "scam" (if you can prove it the FTC will give you a pat on the back and an Attaboy) or you're not taking into account a large amount of costs somewhere in this calculation.
So again, we have this mismatch in costs. So lets suppose the console consumer DOES stand up to the 3 and demands no subscriptions, just like console consumers stood up to the digital rights violation that was the original XBox One. So all 3 end the subscriptions. Nobody subscribes for online paywalls anymore on any platform. Victory at last! Do their costs they're plugging (Assuming they're not showing subscriptions as a source of margin in their earnings. You did check that this time, right?) with subscriptions vanish? No? So then how do they pull in income in the absence of subscriptions to replace it? Do they charge more for games? $64.99 for new games? Is that enough, or should it be $68.99? Do they make smaller games? Then maybe sell the rest as DLC? Works for EA already! Maybe everything becomes episodic sold in $19.99 chunks. Something will need to change with the business model, right? Maybe they just charge $100 more up-front on the console hardware to pay for future network services. Nobody will complain about a $500 Scorpio right? After all, the $600 PS4 went swimmingly so why not? It's a bargain!
If you were to stop claiming false things about the matter and ACTUALLY consider the cost issues involved, AND provide serious comparisons with other companies you're holding up as examples (and those examples aren't wildly different business models that really are comparisons) and if you were to say what models you favor in more detail we might even agree on a variety of things here. But as long as the argument remains "hurr, durr, I'm right and the cloud is free!" it's not going to go anywhere. You can't ignore the actual costs involved and just say "I want free because the tech is cheap!" without honestly looking at the real costs involved in a serious manner.
It's not a secret and it's not a Nintendo only problem that software prices at retail are not covering the elevated costs of development, that additional revenue is required to circumvent that, and that online is the straw that is finally breaking the camel's back. You have to address that elephant in the room before talking about WHAT monitization model you prefer over subscriptions.
@Yorumi That's a little more descriptive (and a bit less argumentative this time.) Definitely a more interesting conversation now!
You do seem a bit fixated on the physical costs of hardware as though that's the only thing involved. You're far from the only person that does that, but it's become all too common like I mentioned. Few people look at the whole picture of things, and like my "Product Acme" example everyone fixates on the tangible material component costs of a product when in most cases that's the SMALLEST cost involved.
As for the past, comparing the status of online, traffic, requirements etc from the PS2, Wii, etc is a terrible comparison. Costs are going up not down. The fledgeling infrastructure (and level of service) provided back then was not what it is today. You also can't cut out the costs of providing tech support for this also. On PC the starting point is "you're already online and if you can't figure it out, here's a forum link" Nintendo, Sony, Microsoft are operating large call centers to handle calls to talk to people asking "I plugged the thingie in where the phone goes but it says I can't play". Ok, scratch Microsoft, they run call centers in India that read a script and nobody not from India can understand them anyway. But the other two run normal call centers.
On PC in the 90's the companies weren't running matchmaking servers at all (save for Blizzard's Battle.net and maybe a handful of exceptions.) All the matchamking servers were provided by the community donating their own (or their organizations) bandwidth and infrastructure (or random desktop PCs.) Companies running their own matchmaking didn't start to become a big thing until 2000 or 2001, and was still excessively crude at that pont. The companies just threw server software in the wild and let people that wanted to run it run it. It worked, but that was also an era when corporate security wasn't locking down office networks and people were running quake servers from the office. Still that actually still exists on PC, though it's not as widespread as a percentage as back then.
Again, we're not talking purely server hardware costs. There's a staff involved. Both in game development continuing past the assigned in-the-box budget, there's the network management (if you want to argue that's rolled into the eStore staff, that might be a fair argument or a point to debate though at a minimum it adds to the man-hours required to be expended), the support aspect, additional QA for networking components (remember the networking of the 90's?) The total sum of costs of supporting the online ecosystem PLUS the disruption that type of game creates to the existing cost model that had reached equilibrium before online became a thing need to be factored in, not just bare metal costs. I think that's the part you're skipping over.
PC games are cheaper for a variety of reasons. They're not subsidizing hardware (Switch is not subsidized supposedly, but PS4, WiiU, X1, and early 3DS were), there are no QA/certification costs and times for PC, you just build it, throw it out there, fix it later. Consoles require up-front certification fees and more revisions to get it approved. (Again we could debate that console, especially non-first party has gone that way, and there would be truth in that), but generally those are incurred costs (which also tend to lead to a smoother consumer experience). Plus physical. When Valve starts shipping their entire library, no, even 50% of their library on physical media that does not require massive data transfer through steam, and has a shelf presence in every retail store that carries games, we can start talking cost of delivery. Console is about the physical ecosystem still. It's the reason I went back to console to begin with, when Valve took over PC and made it digital, I was out. I value physical, I value not using my bandwidth as I try to cut the cord (want to tell me a way to be a serious Steam customer with a 40GB/mo cap? ), and I'll pay a premium to stay there, as will many others. PC is also cheaper due to the lack of resale of used games as a result of the lack of physical (that can be a positive or a negative depending on how you view digital rights, used markets, etc.)
Valve has little in terms of costs as a simple retailer. They run their servers, and they run their servers from the earnings of markup on other companies goods. The same way any retailer runs the heat lights and real estate taxes of a b&m store. Because they don't have the expense of producing content, hardware, etc (yes they still have their tiny collection of games, which is an expense, but it's not a significant portion of either their expenses or income via selling other company's games. The cost scales are different. I don't think Gabe would tell you any differently considering his repeated failed forays to dive into the costs of operating an entire console infrastructure. It's not cheap to do. He knows that first hand and retreated back to what is safe for him. Valve does not sell hardware. Valve produced a spec for third party hardware vendors to produce compatible off the shelf PC assemblies, and they struck a contract with a peripherals vendor for accessories. They don't have their own internal hardware R&D and assembly production. Did that come at a cost? They're not producing anything bespoke short of the controller.
Arenanet is a good example in both directions (in many ways better than Valve. Valve's a kind of unique case.) Arenanet's a good example of a company that is entirely risk averse, but that's not a bad thing. They specialize in a single franchise, and it's one that follows the whale model with a big enough audience that it works. What works for them is they have basically fixed expenses on sustained development but nothing extremely budget intense, and a relatively steady revenue stream where they can predict it. What they don't do is take risks. They don't spend money on some new IP or some piece of hardware that might fail and might need to make up the money elsewhere. They're not very dynamic at all. Business wise that's a good thing (as long as it keeps working), and for fans of their product, that's a good thing. But at the same time they're not a name that rolls off most people's tongues because they're not out in the forefront because they're not the ones taking big risks that might fail big. That's not a knock against Arenanet at all, it's just that they're in a position to provide more value monetarily because they're not taking the risks to provide creative value. And each model has its customers.
Your point about small third parties is the most valid point where there's not too much of a larger picture that I think you're ignoring, and that's the point where I'm close to agreement with you. From the perspective of devil's advocate, you're still hitting the console's account management platform with all the incurred costs and record keeping there (and administration, etc.) And many users are still hitting the console's tech support for connectivity and so forth, so there IS utilization of the console vendors services for that. However if it's not using console vendor architecture for the matchmaking, it's not quite the same deal as for major companies, assuming Psionix in that case is not getting any residuals from the subscriptions (again, Ubi/Acti/Ea/Squeenix/Sega most definitely are, and have contracts fleshed out. Smaller companies like Psionix I can't say so I'm assuming you know for sure they don't.) Covering account administration and support, you can't say it gets away without any fee, but it's also not worth as much if matchmaking isn't from the console vendor (is it definitely not?) and if the publisher isn't getting royalties on the subscriptions (are they not? If not it's a situation where some do some don't, and yes, that's a problem.) This is one area where we can probably agree, or mostly agree, that a different solution needs to be found for the case of download-only titles from publishers not receiving subscription royalties (of course Rocket League is physical on PS4/X1 now, and from a major publisher (505), so whether 505 is getting any royalties and is or is not handing them to Psionix, that's a whole other question.) But I get your point for that TYPE of game, and don't entirely disagree there. The fees covering the total ecosystem are not equal from major and first party games and for download only games providing their own infrastructure and not getting a share of royalties.
Personally (I've said this before) I'm a fan of up front costs. Charge $100 more for the console to cover the 4-6 year lifespan of online and associated costs, and set costs accordingly. But I also know the market would rather pay $0.99 100 times over 4 years than pay $50 once ever so I understand why they price it like they do even though I think everyone's an idiot for doing it that way So you get to buy a console $100 cheaper and pay $20 chunks for years (or $50 for Sony where you're also buying other people free games...NEVER paying for that again and I hope Nintendo sticks with not going that route.)
And I agree 100% with out of control costs, and I'm counting down the minutes until "PC level graphics" implodes across the whole industry. It's not sustainable and never was and it's not going to end well. I'm actually hoping the Switch causes a shift to mobility over power and reverses that trend for the good of the whole industry. The production costs thing is a whole different conversation Thanos and I have flooded text walls about before Yeah, it's bad. The artists thought they were movie producers, and became obsessed with photorealistic graphics. The whole trend really started back in the 90's into the early 00's PC era when the hardware vendors (nVidia and ATI, and early on, 3dfx) were dumping good money after bad to up the production standards endlessly to push out ever more new hardware. Intel joined in to push their new graphics busses and chipsets.) And to their credit, "gamers" demanded ever better constantly more spectacular graphics (something Yokoi caught onto early and is the reason he set the trajectory for Nintendo not to compete on the graphics arms race that culminated in the Wii eventually, identifying it as a bottomless pit "they will not be satisfied with each improvement and will desire more") So, yeah, zero disagreement on that aspect at all. Heck the quality is garbage the gameplay is basic, but you can watch it like a movie and it looks photographic....it's worse, for more money and costs more to make. But from the pure money perspective, if they're spending that much, and costs to produce it keep going up, and the income they get from each game sale due to inflation keeps going down, the DO need to keep being creative to find ways to pull in money not just to make money or break even but to not lose AS much. Even if budgets went back to where they were in 1995 for late SNES games, the earnings per game are STILL far less due to inflation and the inability to adjust the game price for inflation due to consumer rejection. From that angle, the $20, even 50/yr is a bargain to "pretend" we're not paying that into our games, even if it unlocked no online at all.
Back on the Sony MS front (ignoring Nintendo a moment) the fact that they're PAYING customers to take their console, then PAYING 3rd parties to provide games for their platform, then making the loss back on expensive games & subscriptions is the root problem. With Switch Nintendo's finally out of that loop (or so they tell investors....Switch is actually a lot of tech, if they're selling at a profit it shows that nVidia was so desperate they gave the store away.)
@Yorumi Yes HARDWARE costs of course go down. I mean the total cost of operating the business unit (employees, taxes, liability insurance, etc. (You can laugh at liability insurance as part of it, but imagine the big Sony hack had they not had that. The whole company would be shuddered years ago.)
Valve, again as a retailer less expenses, and all the reasons I mentioned above why they can sell games cheaper than console games still apply . Your point otherwise isn't entirely wrong there, but it's still focusing on the final delivery aspects of cost and not the total operational costs involved. I.E. you're viewing what I'm saying through a lens of "if everything is so expensive they can't even provide cheap account management out of the profits of that" but that's not really the angle I'm seeing it. I'm seeing it that "the costs of all that don't really balance out, so they need to raise revenue elsewhere, and since account management is a new expense, the surplus can come from there." Meaning, if it were a business priority to make online free, they'd make it free, pay for that, but then the funds of the overall operations would have to be raised from somewhere else (increasing console costs, increasing game costs, breaking games down to more DLC, etc. etc.) It's a shell game of where does the money come from and where does it go. Yes, online adds expenses. Since that's the least beneficial to the core business, and the newest expense involved, that's where they direct the surplus fees rather than destabilize, say, the existing RPG single player customer pool.
It's because of the costs associated with online, yes, but that's not the only thing it pays for either. Nor is all it pays for tangible. I.E., what I mentioned before revenue LOSSES due to the exsitence of online. I.E. Splatoon as a 2002 single palyer console game would have had no ongoing costs post shipment, would have occupied a player for a period of time, and that player would go on to buy another single player game. Now with online a player can buy ONLY that game and play it constantly for 2 years buying nothing else. Lost revenue because online exists AND incurring ongoing expenses. I'm viewing that entirely from a business perspective so bear with me on that, but from a business perspective, you have your costs, you ahve your income, then you have this model that comes in and changes HOW customers buy their games, and you see the income dropping off. You need to raise income and you see that particular game as a source of the dropoff. You need to charge more for that game as it's effectively costing you more. Or you could charge more for all your games to make up the difference but that might turn a lot of customers away. So you might want to charge more for that one game....or charge it as a subscription for all the online games in one grouping. (I know you might chafe at that as a consumer, but if you put yourself at the big desk and ask "how would I handle the decline, how do I make up the trend of declining revenues created by online games" and knowing its your job to come up with a way to fight that....it makes a little more sense.
Valve's position is somewhat different. They get their flat fee no matter who's selling what game. They don't care if a game sells a lot or a little as long as SOMEONE's game is selling, it's all the same to them. So their income is a lot more stable. Nintendo's/Sonys/MS's eShop works similarly, but that's a tiny portion of their overall expenses where for valve that's ALL their expenses (minus the small pocket that remains of their game development.) One thing Valve has done as well is leverage their position as a pseudo-monopoly (I think they account for 75% of all PC now) to arrange the market and the pricing to suit their own goals. Nintendo at one time had that position but it's been a very long time since they have. Sony and MS don't have that position as almost equal competitors, and even MS had to cow to Steam on Windows.
Though I admit it's hard for me to discuss Steam with a straight face as I have a general hatred of them stemming back to when they first came into the picture and how they behaved. Whatever value they provide now, it's impossible to forget how they treated people back then and how they strong-armed the industry so keep in mind any discussion of Valve will have me hissing through gnashed teeth, with 10 times the hatred you may harbor for paid online, and that will not ever, ever change I know they ARE providing an ok value now (because they were forced to) so I do want to talk about them seriously, but what I find gross about it is how nearly all of the PC world either doesn't know or conveniently forgets who they used to be and that it's the same guy smiling and waving at them now who tried to skewer them 17 or so years ago.
But back to retail vs. digital there's one other aspect that goes into it is what subsidizes what (I.E. if online subscriptions are subsidizing single player games like BotW, and subsidizing hardware in Sony/MS case) there's also the fact that consoles are subsidizing PC to a degree. Games used to be $50 across the board for most platforms, and it was in no small part due to Steam and their high royalties but the race to the bottom pricing that the big publishers latched onto the fact console buyers were willing to pay more for physical they started adding the "console tax" to $60 which in part subsidizes publishers sometimes break-even pricing to Steam. On PC (and in console) there's also subsidy from hardware providers (nVidia, AMD, Creative back in the day) to promote certain technologies. And from console providers (excluding Nint) for game features/support. For consoles that cost shows up in subscriptions, and the console game tax. For hardware it shows up in elevated prices for video cards and other hardware.
Nothing is as it seems is kind of the motto once you start down the rabbit hole of figuring out costs.
"(your ISP most of the time charges less for full unlimited internet)"
Even using Sony's most expensive plan, where are you finding an ISP that charges $50/yr for unlimited internet and can you sign me up? I'm paying around that per WEEK I mean you do realize even for Sony that's likely going to be double the price of Nintendo's final price, you're talking $4 a month, right? If Nintendo's really $20 we're talking $1.60 a month. That's not so unreasonable for administrative charges is it? My phone company charges more just to keep a dial tone. It's less than a dollar per game if you buy a lot of games a year. If they added the extra dollar or two to every retail game, would you be more accepting of that than the subscription even if it nets you the same (or more) costs?
Maybe a better question to phrase it, let's just for now talk about the proposed $20/yr for Nintendo (ignoring subsidizing people's free games on Sony/MS), at $1.60/mo, do you think the server space, bandwidth, taxes, insurance, fees, available tech support etc spent on the average individual customer per month might cost the company a dollar or two? Now if we add in the fact that maybe $60 doesn't really cover the costs of BotW or Xenoblade 2, etc...do you think regular customers are getting $1.60 value per month that the company might be currently eating?
And do you think that $1.60 isn't built into Valve's share of margin on Steam? Maybe $.25 or .50 per game based on the average attach from Steam customers?
It's a different way of pulling in the same money. Any losses on a game sale aren't incurred by Valve, they get their cut sink or swim. It's EA, Ubi, Psyosis whoever that eat losses and thin margins (and then they take out their losses on DLC, season passes, unfinished games, "My Face Is Tired" (ME: Andromeda being release clearly before it was done), etc, etc. Nintendo/Sony/MS absorbs their losses on XCX or SF0, Kinektimals, or whatever failing. Valve doesn't. That assumes the subscriptions plug any of those holes and not just the actual server/administration costs.
Again, PERSONALLY I'd rather them build it into the up-front costs but it actually does look worse in consumer space. But it's also less stable because you don't know what a given attach will be to a given game, and then you'd have spikes during holiday sales and droughts in February, while you're still spending as much on servers. STABLE steady cashflow is pure gold in business.
And yeah MS has a lot of cash in the bank, but of course "the company should just spend all their liquid assets to give as much value to consumers as possible" can't happen in real business. That cash reserve is the very best buffer they have to being bought out. Anyone trying to buy them directly, hostilely, would have to front that amount of liquid cash to even get in the door. That's a pretty big moat. Anyone that would try to hostilely buy them through a stealth stock takeover would have to pay a fortune in payouts to exceed real value of shares based on a company valued with that stockpile of liquid assets. Either way it's a big moat and fortress wall around the company so they can ignore the outside world more like a private company (within limits.) Losing that would mean a company like Sony or even a large international bank could basically barge in, claim the company, fire everyone, and declare it a mobile studio to cash out in 5 years. It's easy to understand why keeping a cash pile hoarded like DK's bananas is super important to them and why they're not likely to want to grow that pile rather than dip into it. It's a lot of money but it's not spending money and it's not executive take-home pay or direct dividends to investors. It's protection money (the interest yields on it can go out as the dividends and keep investors content enough.)
There's kind of a metagame that goes on at the business level with this stuff. It's like a video game except it's all real money. And if you lose the enemies probably are actually trying to kill you
Your closing paragraph, I think you're half right. I don't think the subscriptions are a profit engine. They're not MAKING any money on that venture. We don't know for Nintendo yet, but for the other two we do know, it's not a profit engine. So any thoughts of "they're making money charging for nothing" is just wrong, they aren't making money doing that at all. HOWEVER the shell game I mentioned of how do you shuffle necessary incomes in a way that is palatable to the consumer is a part of it, and they did figure out that their customers are not only willing but eager to pay the subscription for online, and is thus an avenue to a portion of the audience to sell the service to and thus that's a viable route to shuffle those expenses to that consumers won't reject in part due to not understanding what they are or aren't paying for. You're basically right on that part I think, but you're overlooking where it's really going, why it really exists, and all the behind the scenes aspects. It's a logical place to pad the expenses and to an audience that will accept it. So that's where it goes.
If everyone were to one day decide they're not ok paying for it in that subscription model and revolt, X1 reveal style, against it, they would dissipate it. But the cost wouldn't vanish. It would appear elsewhere either on the box price of games, or more "season pass" (which is just a per-game subscription and thus MORE expensive than the console-wide subscription, don't let them fool you into thinking you're really buying content any more than you don't want people to think they're buying dedicated servers), etc. etc. If Nintendo's not giving out (and thus paying for) games with their subscription they can keep costs very low and still be the value leader.
Show Comments
Leave A Comment
Hold on there, you need to login to post a comment...