Auf YouTube findest du die angesagtesten Videos und Tracks. Außerdem kannst du eigene Inhalte hochladen und mit Freunden oder gleich der ganzen Welt teilen.
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.
It’s not at all uncommon for games with an online component to have elements you need to play online to access. That’s been a part of Pokemon since the series first added online play. Hell, even before that, Pokemon was conceived from the beginning to be a social game, built around the Game Boy’s Link Cable if you want to see and do everything. It’s never been exclusively singleplayer.
All I’m saying is that if you count online play as though it was part of a game’s cost, you should be doing the same thing for games on other platforms too. You can’t selectively pretend it only counts here.
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.
It’s not at all uncommon for games with an online component to have elements you need to play online to access. That’s been a part of Pokemon since the series first added online play. Hell, even before that, Pokemon was conceived from the beginning to be a social game, built around the Game Boy’s Link Cable if you want to see and do everything. It’s never been exclusively singleplayer.
All I’m saying is that if you count online play as though it was part of a game’s cost, you should be doing the same thing for games on other platforms too. You can’t selectively pretend it only counts here.