A Nintendo community
by the fans!
           
  Forum main
 + 
Should Nintendo start offering a paid online service? Would you subscribe? [roundtable]
 
So earlier today, the unfortunate news has broken that Nintendo is shutting down its Wi-Fi Connection service for all Wii/DS games.

This is obviously sad news for those of us who still play and enjoy these games. That being said however, it was a free service and despite Nintendo's other limitations in the online space, we had a pretty good run considering the cost. Of course this raises the spectre of the same thing eventually happening to 3DS/WiiU. Which is just as depressing.

So I can't help but wonder if the time has come for Nintendo to bite the bullet and start offering a paid service ala XBL/PSN, the proceeds of which would go towards keeping these online services running for a while longer instead of shutting down soon after the generation ends.

With both Microsoft and Sony already charging for their own networks, Nintendo aren't likely to actually lose customers with such a move, so I think it's viable. That being said, a paid subscription would require some basic level of functionality to come with it- Namely proper voice chat, matchmaking, leaderboards etc.

I don't know what the potential is for Nintendo to undercut the other two on costs whilst providing the service, but the entire concept bears looking into IMO.


So what do you guys think? Is it finally time for Nintendo to join the big boys in a wider online world? What would you be prepared to pay?

URL to share (right click and copy)
02/27/14, 09:27    Edited: 02/27/14, 09:27
 
Why not sign up for a (free) account?
   
 
Ugh, they better not. Right now, that would be a "no" for me.

If Nintendo wants to force America back into couch co-op, this is the thing to do.
02/28/14, 01:27   
Some interesting insights on reddit on this matter:

reddit said:
This is because Wii and DS online are using Gamespy technology for their matchmaking service.
Unfortunately, Gamespy matchmaking was bought by Glu Mobile in August 2012. A bunch of games suddenly lost multiplayer matchmaking (Star Wars: Battlefront, Sniper Elite, Microsoft Flight Simulator X and Neverwinter Nights, etc.) without any notice. I imagine that Nintendo had contracts in place that made sure they couldn't shut down service until the contract had completed. My guess would be that Glu Mobile wanted to stop supporting Nintendo ASAP. I really doubt Nintendo would electively shut down service for Wii and DS unless they really had to.

reddit said:
My experience with Nintendo development says no.
Essentially, the libraries for multiplayer matchmaking are embedded into the binaries and the calls from that library go directly to the Gamespy servers. To replace that library, recompile, and test every online game for Wii and DS would be a logistical nightmare.
Maybe there's some way to do traffic routing against all of these calls to some other domain, but then Nintendo would have to re-implement the same functionality that Gamespy already had. I'm not totally sure they can do that technically or contractually.
02/28/14, 01:58   
Nope. I see no reason to pay for online play no matter how many features they have.
02/28/14, 02:01   
Not unless they offered access to the entire VC catalogue. Even, then I would feel dirty for paying for online.
02/28/14, 02:02   
It may be important to note that a big part of my personal philosophy is that game developers and hardware manufacturers (outside of Nintendo) are unwisely inflating their budgets and have been for some time. If they were more responsible and more greatly emphasized equating things other than budgets with quality, they wouldn't need to be as preoccupied with ways to squeeze more pennies out of their most dedicated consumers.

So, yea, I know servers don't run on dreams, but if you ask where I think that money should be coming from, I think it's already there. Again, gaming is expensive enough, if they can't do great things with these heaps of money (most lucrative from of media in the world if I'm not mistaken) then the solution probably involves a different approach, not more revenue.

Also, remember, the topic asked for our opinions. You don't need to be convinced by my reasons any more than I need to be convinced of whatever Jargon was saying about the gov't seizing my video games. =P We're just here to share thoughts on the subject, right? So, we shared. Yay, us, we did it!
02/28/14, 02:33   
@NinSage

Not trying to be convinced, just trying to understand the mindset behind the 'free online' argument, even with a XBL feature set.

@Stephen

That is interesting. I wonder what Nintendo are using now if that is the case? And is it a bit more 'future-proof' (so to speak) against shutdowns?
02/28/14, 03:26   
@NinSage

Just sharing my opinion on your opinion!

And I don't think the government will seize your video games, but I will note that it could happen. The government does a lot more seizing of property than Steam has done revoking licenses. And there's literally no difference between having a flash drive with my DRM-free Humble Bundle games on it and you having your Wii discs. Except mine are backed up!
02/28/14, 03:37   
@Shadowlink

And even if you don't agree with it, do you at least understand the thinking behind it? Remember, my ideal involves a trade-off in bloated budgets, which, depending on the group behind it, would likely lead to scaled back everything. In other words, I would rather have solid games w/o bells and whistles that work and play great for a fair price than pay a lot more for games and features that are supposed to blow my flappin' mind but... just don't seem to achieve more than solid... to me. Dig it? Of course, we've expanded beyond the initial question but, only because they appear tied to other concepts.

@Jargon

If all digital content was DRM free, and could, say, play on third-party hardware, I would feel very, very..... very... different about that business model. Now, if you'll excuse me I-- hey! Obama! Put down my copy of ChibiRobo! DUDE! GET BACK HEEEEERREEEE!!!
02/28/14, 04:08   
I think I would pay a small fee to keep the servers up. Perhaps 3.99 a month or $30 a year in order to play games online. Nevertheless, before doing that, I would look at what Steam is doing and try to apply that to consoles. They don't charge extra for online play and you still get a competent experience (arguably better than consoles.)

Ninsage has a point in that companies could (read. should) find better ways to manage their budget in order not to go overboard with scripted sequences and bombastic set pieces and perhaps allocate that money into online play or actually making their games more ingenious.
02/28/14, 04:37   
@NinSage

I'll be the first to admit that gaming budgets are bloated, but I think you'll have a hard time convincing publishers to plow any cost cutbacks back into a robust online service, unless there was anything in it for them. For most games, after a couple of years when sales have dwindled, there's no real financial incentive for them to keep the multiplayer going- They're not attracting new sales anyway.

The other thing to consider is that it's not necessarily the publishers/developers responsible for this stuff, it's the hardware manufacturers. As evidenced by this console-wide shutdown.

Does anyone know exactly how the financial arrangements work? Obviously Nintendo/Microsoft/Sony set up the base infrastructure, but what's the contribution on the other side? Do they set up the specific servers and just plug into the wider console-based network? Is there a fee paid by the publishers/developers to the console manufacturers to access it? Or (in the case of the paid subscriptions) do Microsoft or Sony return a portion of their network subscription fees back to the publishers based on multiplayer traffic?
02/28/14, 05:00   
Just my 2 cents but I don't see the problem with big-budget games, just like I don't mind big-budget movies. I don't really care how much something like The Last of Us cost to make, I just glad that is gets made.

Of course I also love stuff like Steamworld Dig, which had probably less than 1% of the budget of TLoU. Games of all scales and budgets are cool with me.

Now if some big company like Square Enix goes bankrupt because they spend a ton of money on games that are creatively bankrupt or just not fun, then that's a problem with the content itself, not necessarily proof that that big budgets are evil.
02/28/14, 18:17   
What would be cool would be to have a paid service for something like the VC. I'm sure the VC doesn't cost much to maintain.

What if you have a service that costs $50 a year and you get:

1.) Cross-buy VC games - play your VC games on both handheld and console
2.) Faux cloud storage. Not exactly store your save files in the cloud, but allow your 3DS and Wii U to talk to each other so they can share save files. Play your game on your Wii U, and use Streetpass/Spotpass to send that to your nearby 3DS. Go out and play your 3DS where you left off. Bring your 3DS back to your Wii U and pick up on your big TV.
3.) Play X amount of VC games for free. Maybe a PSN like service where certain games become available to play for free each month. Over time you just get a library of games that you can go to at any time. It could be like Gamefly where, if you want to keep a game permanently, you pay a small fee.
4.) A year of Pokemon Bank

I don't know if that's a service that would really cost all that much to maintain. Then you can use profits from that service to help maintain multiplayer servers and all that. Is this doable in theory? That is, use an optional paid service to help pay for services that gamers have come to accept as standard? They could also pay for things like online play through low cost/high profit, smaller eShop games.
02/28/14, 18:37   
@PogueSquadron
All that sounds good but I also think that along with that you'd need robust online multiplayer/voice-chat/friends/messaging/trophies, basically all the features that are standard on XBL or PSN. In addition to VC games it would be good to get a few newer games for "free" as well. For example if Wii U had a PS+ type system maybe some launch games like NSMBU and Zombi U would be available.
02/28/14, 19:06   
After thinking a bit, I might consider paying a small fee for system-wide online. What I mean by that is, online play is handled at a system level, and even if a game has a local multiplayer mode then it can still be played online. That way, anything with a multiplayer mode could be played online. I imagine it could work similar to how PC emulators do online play.

What's a "small fee" to me? Probably about $3/month.
02/28/14, 21:37   
@Shadowlink I saw this was linked in the GAF thread from GameSpy's website.

GameSpy said:
EFFECTIVE JANUARY 1ST, 2013, GAMESPY HAS CEASED TO MAKE ITS SOFTWARE AVAILABLE FOR LICENSING.

IF YOU’RE A MAJOR LABEL PUBLISHER OR EVEN AN ESTABLISHED DEVELOPMENT STUDIO, YOU KNOW – THE ONES THAT HAVE RELEASED TITLES AND REAL OFFICES WITH COOL THINGS LIKE HR DEPARTMENTS, OFFICE MANAGERS, ETC. AND HAVE AN AGREEMENT IN GOOD STANDING (YOU KNOW, YOU PAY YOUR BILLS, ETC) WHILE YOU WILL NO LONGER BE ABLE TO ADD NEW TITLES, YOUR EXISTING SUPPORTED TITLES WILL CONTINUE TO FUNCTION WHILE UNDER PAID SUPPORT.

Annual support costs are calculated at 10% of the then current License Fees.

License Fees are $44,000.00 per platform which includes your first year of distribution.

- See more at: http://www.poweredbygamespy.com/pricing/#sthash.SkIezrBV.dpuf

So it looks like the cost is 44k initially, plus 4.4k per year, per platform. BTW gotta love that statement. Such hostility.
03/02/14, 00:57   
@Stephen

You know, REAL OFFICES, with CAROL IN HR.

03/02/14, 01:03   
I've never paid for PSN or XBL, and I'd never pay for a Nintendo Network. Hell, if Steam started charging a monthly/yearly fee I wouldn't bite. I pay for my ISP, that is the extent of it.
03/02/14, 01:12   
@Stephen

So at 4.4K per game and about 250 games using the service....that's 1.1 million per year.

Now Nintendo could easily handle that, heck add an extra dollar to the price of each new Mario/Zelda game and it's done (and then some)

Or, if we went down the subscription route, split that cost over even 1% of the Wii Userbase- That's slightly more than a buck a year.


Come on guys, if it really came down to it, (it shouldn't, but if it did), would you really give up the Wi-fi for the lack of a single dollar a year? I sure as heck wouldn't.
03/02/14, 01:21   
Sheesh, what a question. I'm normally against it, but if it could salvage Wii online gaming, I might have to ante up in that scenario. They'd have to blow that shit out, though, like making every Virtual Console game that has multiplayer functional online, too.

Yeah, I think I've set the bar high enough that I'd never actually consider an annual fee for Nintendo's theoretical online service, but I'd love it if Iwata made it happen.

Edit- I fucking HATE the spell check on my phone!
03/02/14, 04:04   
Edited: 03/02/14, 04:08
@Deerock69

Well apparently this issue wasn't about money but about the company that Nintendo hosted its online services being bought out and wanting to stop said company from licensing its software.

At this point I agree with the person that said it is not worth it to re-code the service. I rather have Nintendo focus on getting service that actually makes sense going forward. That means an account-based system and not being stupidly locked into just one physical console (and having to call Nintendo and offer Nintendo a police report saying you lost the thing or that it broke.) And of course it also means having a competent online infrastructure for gaming, cross-game chat, invitations/messages that work even when the other person isn't connected, etc.
03/02/14, 08:21   
  Forum main
 +