Auf YouTube findest du die angesagtesten Videos und Tracks. Außerdem kannst du eigene Inhalte hochladen und mit Freunden oder gleich der ganzen Welt teilen.
Is that really fair to add? Nobody did it for PSN or xbox live. Also who is to say this is the only game you want online for? Then there’s family pricing which is often split amongst members.
$100 is already a lot for a game. No need to inflate the figure.
I think these online subscriptions are proving to be a major factor in why there’s been a migration of audiences from consoles to PC. People are seemingly running the long-term calculus in their heads and realizing PC is cheaper at a certain threshold.
Probably because neither Sony nor Microsoft are locking single player content behind their online subscriptions. Not to mention you’re strawmanning really hard right now. Those two do it. In PC circles you’ll hear it bashed all the time. Meanwhile, Nintendo is doing it worse than anyone else because they’re deliberately locking single player content behind a subscription, not just here but also for any of their classic library, which just isn’t available for sale. Meanwhile, I could go buy a digital copy of an original xbox game on the latest xbox and it’ll just play and if I owned a digital copy on a previous console it’s transferable.
Stop it. The things you’re arguing aren’t relevant and even if they were, Nintendo is STILL the worst offender.
$20 for online for Ranked Battles. The reward for them are Mega Evolve Pokemon. If you want them you need online and that’s $20.
Is that really fair to add? Nobody did it for PSN or xbox live. Also who is to say this is the only game you want online for? Then there’s family pricing which is often split amongst members.
$100 is already a lot for a game. No need to inflate the figure.
I think these online subscriptions are proving to be a major factor in why there’s been a migration of audiences from consoles to PC. People are seemingly running the long-term calculus in their heads and realizing PC is cheaper at a certain threshold.
Yes. We are talking about Pokemon. You know “You gotta catch em all!!” series. You need online to do that.
Then you should be consistent and count the cost of PSN and XBL the same way.
Okay, but we are talking Nintendo.
It seems a little disingenuous to single them out this way, especially when the competitors you’re strangely silent on are more expensive.
Man, they really got you by the childhood.
Why do you only single out Nintendo for something that Sony and Microsoft charge even more for?
Probably because neither Sony nor Microsoft are locking single player content behind their online subscriptions. Not to mention you’re strawmanning really hard right now. Those two do it. In PC circles you’ll hear it bashed all the time. Meanwhile, Nintendo is doing it worse than anyone else because they’re deliberately locking single player content behind a subscription, not just here but also for any of their classic library, which just isn’t available for sale. Meanwhile, I could go buy a digital copy of an original xbox game on the latest xbox and it’ll just play and if I owned a digital copy on a previous console it’s transferable.
Stop it. The things you’re arguing aren’t relevant and even if they were, Nintendo is STILL the worst offender.