• aislopmukbang@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 day ago

    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.

    • ampersandrew@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 day ago

      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.

    • Hal-5700X@sh.itjust.worksOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      1 day ago

      Is that really fair to add?

      Yes. We are talking about Pokemon. You know “You gotta catch em all!!” series. You need online to do that.

      • missingno@fedia.io
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        1 day ago

        Then you should be consistent and count the cost of PSN and XBL the same way.

          • missingno@fedia.io
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            4
            ·
            1 day ago

            It seems a little disingenuous to single them out this way, especially when the competitors you’re strangely silent on are more expensive.

              • missingno@fedia.io
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                4
                arrow-down
                3
                ·
                1 day ago

                Why do you only single out Nintendo for something that Sony and Microsoft charge even more for?

                • BreakerSwitch@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  3
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  23 hours ago

                  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.

                  • missingno@fedia.io
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    arrow-down
                    3
                    ·
                    22 hours ago

                    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.