This is a tired argument. Why does it have to come out of your video game budget? Why can't it come out of your fast food budget? Your buy-a-random-magazine-at-the-grocery-store budget? Your see-a-movie budget (which actually costs twice as much)? Think of all the things you spend a measly four dollars a month on.
Sure you are rich
No matter how many times you say 'FOUR DOLLARS FOUR DOLLARS!" It doesn't change the fact that it adds up to $200-250. To a lot of people, that's just not worth it for an in-game buddy list.
I love it when someone brings up the adult wage argument when discussing paying a measly fifty bones a year.
You know what else adult wages go towards paying?
Rent
Utilities
Girlfriend/Wife/Children
You'd be amazed how far fifty extra dollars a year goes.
Of course knowing this board the third option might not be that common.
Fuck if I kept plugging away with my current job without ever having option three I'd be driving a fancy car and put a down payment on a giant house right now. You can get away with having a giant gaming budget even on a shitty job if you don't mind being a friendless pasty loner.
Exactly Xenogears and Dirty [strike]get me[/strike] have thought it through.
Just because I'm an adult pulling an adults wage doesn't mean I've decided it fine and sensible for me to spend much more on gaming than I used to as a teen.
Sometimes Nintendo's online play frustrates me, but in the end I think it's a good trade off.
At least Wii games still support local multiplayer. Only a dismal few games have this feature anymore on the other two consoles, and it kind of pisses me off.
I suppose that's unfair, I don't yet own a PS3, but of the 360 games I own (and I own a lot), there are very few choices when it comes to playing with a friend sitting next to you on the couch. Sometimes I wonder why they added support for multiple controllers at all.
It's funny, I understand people complaining about lack of online play, but I don't understand why more people aren't complaining about the phasing out of local multiplayer.
While I hadn't even thought about this (mostly because the only non-Nintendo system I own is a PS2 for playing RPGs), and I would much rather hang onto local multiplayer options than give them up for online play, I would hope Nintendo could improve the one without sacrificing the other.
Sometimes Nintendo's online play frustrates me, but in the end I think it's a good trade off.
At least Wii games still support local multiplayer. Only a dismal few games have this feature anymore on the other two consoles, and it kind of pisses me off.
I suppose that's unfair, I don't yet own a PS3, but of the 360 games I own (and I own a lot), there are very few choices when it comes to playing with a friend sitting next to you on the couch. Sometimes I wonder why they added support for multiple controllers at all.
It's funny, I understand people complaining about lack of online play, but I don't understand why more people aren't complaining about the phasing out of local multiplayer.
While I hadn't even thought about this (mostly because the only non-Nintendo system I own is a PS2 for playing RPGs), and I would much rather hang onto local multiplayer options than give them up for online play, I would hope Nintendo could improve the one without sacrificing the other.
Oh yeah, I'm not saying they should give up on one of them, I was just stating that it's nice to have a system that supports local multiplayer this gen.
It seems that Sony and Microsoft are so obsessed with pushing everything online that they're forgetting about good old fashioned 'elbow your friend in the ribs because he snuck up on you' local multiplayer.
So while I agree that Nintendo's online structure is crap, and would like to see more out of it, the silver lining of that cloud is that they still have to focus on plain old offline multiplayer.
I don't see any point in playing online games were I have no keyboard or mic.
When I think about Nintendo's online service this image always comes to mind.
But then, really, they fail at even that basic level of communication.
so you are more about talking then gameplay? seems a bit strange.
Poor boy, you must have missed the whole arcade scene.
Bah, the Arcade scene didn't need voice chat, since it supported local multiplayer. :P
The good new is ventrilo is free. I've actually recently been using my 360 to chat with friends while I play Wii games online with them. Obviously, this isn't ideal, but it gets the job done.
It might be that I don't have enough 360 friends online, but the voice chat has never been a big selling point for me. I mean, most of the time no one's saying anything anyway, especially during a heated game. And if they are talking alot, it's usually stuff I don't really care to hear.
I think the "Its only $4.17 a month" argument is tired. Everything sounds cheap if you do enough division. Why not say its 14 cents a day? My TV was only $4.62 a day for 1.5 years. Who can't afford $4.62? Gold cost $200-250 for the life of the console. I guess I could take it out of my "take out the girlfriend" budget. Then she can go to bed without me while I check to see how much C4r7m4nnnn2123 has boosted his gamerscore.
I don't think the idea is to be dividing it until it looks small, I think the idea is that $4.17 a month / $50 a year / $200 over 4 years shouldn't look like a lot of money to most salaried workers no matter how you slice it, despite the fact that $50000 over a millenia is enough to buy a nice car. Every time this comes up it seems to me that this argument would be trotted out no matter how little Live cost, there's no actual discussion of value involved at all.
The TV argument really gets me. If you were able to pay $4.62 a day for TV, then $4.17 a month for a gaming service, being less than 1/30 than the budget for the TV, should have been insignificant, or else the $4.62 a day should have been a major place to start cutting back unless it was your livelihood. But apparently when discussing Live it becomes impossible to make these kinds of judgments on the value of a dollar over any given time interval. (EDIT: Wait, was this talking about the cost of the TV itself? Well, never mind, I guess. It just struck me that $140/month for TV seems like a lot even now, with all the fancy digital options being offered)
if you buy 4 games a year over all platforms, and play for a total of 3 hours over those 12 months, then, yeah, Live is probably a poor investment. In general, though, on this board I see a lot of (alleged) impulse buys, people who talk about buying multiple 360s or DSes, who pick up a GBA Micro just because, and every single time someone asks, "Should I get xx or yy", invariably someone says "both" and half the time the OP does. In this kind of environment I do get a bit scrunchy eyed when the cost of Live becomes a major point of contention.
You'd be amazed how far fifty extra dollars a year goes.
That's less then a days extra work on minimum wage. Far less if you're not dirt poor. So really, enlighten a short fat, pasty loser such as myself as to how far it can strech? I mean really, twenty five quid a year? Seriously?
what plan would that be, exactly? the plan to be a billion years behind everyone else in the online space? that plan's going swimmingly.
The Dreamcast had more robust online than the Wii currently does. Hell, the Nintendo DS has more robust online by virtue of the fact it has voice chat.
You'd be amazed how far fifty extra dollars a year goes.
That's less then a days extra work on minimum wage. Far less if you're not dirt poor. So really, enlighten a short fat, pasty loser such as myself as to how far it can strech? I mean really, twenty five quid a year? Seriously?
Over here that fifty bucks is the price of another Wii game. Or one and two thirds of a DS game.
It's a lot when you're only bugeted for one or two games a year.
Besides now we are wildly off topic.
The next real proof of concept Wii online game isn't really Mario Kart, which will be servicable, but Animal Crossing. That's the one I'm interested in seeing.
In this kind of environment I do get a bit scrunchy eyed when the cost of Live becomes a major point of contention.
Well, its very easy to justify spending X amount of dollars on some game. A game is fun in and of itself. When you're talking about Live, it gets a little cloudier. Live isn't fun all by itself, it can only enhance the fun of other stuff you already spent money on. Then there are the people with multiple game platforms. Many of us have PCs are even PS3s. If we really want to play online, we can do so for free.
I know for some, who primarily play 360, and can't stand to play offline, Live Gold is essential. But for people like me, Gold isn't essential, and doesn't offer me as much fun as spending that money on more games.
I didn't mind WFC to begin with. I only ever bothered adding friends for Animal Crossing because there is simply no fucking way I'm entering 20 friend codes for every game I buy. I mean, really, no. But random match-ups seemed fine in Mario Kart and Tetris, and we had fun at Uni with Strikers.
But last week I bought CoD4 and Xbox Live. And now I'm considering not bothering with WFC at all. In fact, with the Smash release in Europe, I'm kind of considering giving up on Nintendo all together. I'll play Zelda and Mario, hell, I'd buy consoles for those games. But I'm so disillusioned with them right now, I'm totally fed up of being treated like shit. I feel like a king with my 360 and I quite like it. Rare in Europe.
I have no problem spending money on live. But Microsoft has to realize that they're losing that battle. I'm sure they'll go to a free plan at some point, whether or not it's before their next console releases remains to be seen.
You'd be amazed how far fifty extra dollars a year goes.
That's less then a days extra work on minimum wage. Far less if you're not dirt poor. So really, enlighten a short fat, pasty loser such as myself as to how far it can strech? I mean really, twenty five quid a year? Seriously?
Over here that fifty bucks is the price of another Wii game. Or one and two thirds of a DS game.
It's a lot when you're only bugeted for one or two games a year.
That's not really streching very far. Especially given how much live can add to the lengh you enjoy the games you do own. Maybe you should just be less poor.
I think the "Its only $4.17 a month" argument is tired. Everything sounds cheap if you do enough division. Why not say its 14 cents a day? My TV was only $4.62 a day for 1.5 years. Who can't afford $4.62? Gold cost $200-250 for the life of the console. I guess I could take it out of my "take out the girlfriend" budget. Then she can go to bed without me while I check to see how much C4r7m4nnnn2123 has boosted his gamerscore.
I don't think the idea is to be dividing it until it looks small, I think the idea is that $4.17 a month / $50 a year / $200 over 4 years shouldn't look like a lot of money to most salaried workers no matter how you slice it, despite the fact that $50000 over a millenia is enough to buy a nice car. Every time this comes up it seems to me that this argument would be trotted out no matter how little Live cost, there's no actual discussion of value involved at all.
The TV argument really gets me. If you were able to pay $4.62 a day for TV, then $4.17 a month for a gaming service, being less than 1/30 than the budget for the TV, should have been insignificant, or else the $4.62 a day should have been a major place to start cutting back unless it was your livelihood. But apparently when discussing Live it becomes impossible to make these kinds of judgments on the value of a dollar over any given time interval. (EDIT: Wait, was this talking about the cost of the TV itself? Well, never mind, I guess. It just struck me that $140/month for TV seems like a lot even now, with all the fancy digital options being offered)
if you buy 4 games a year over all platforms, and play for a total of 3 hours over those 12 months, then, yeah, Live is probably a poor investment. In general, though, on this board I see a lot of (alleged) impulse buys, people who talk about buying multiple 360s or DSes, who pick up a GBA Micro just because, and every single time someone asks, "Should I get xx or yy", invariably someone says "both" and half the time the OP does. In this kind of environment I do get a bit scrunchy eyed when the cost of Live becomes a major point of contention.
Ah you see at least this argument makes sense. I agree. It clearly is an issue of worth. But thats exactly why I find it frustrating. I've no problem spending money on a game (though my time in the bargain thread makes it clear how I approach that) but the issue is that Live makes it a dichotomy of choice. To use on-line multiplayer or not. But actual use of on-line multiplayer is anything but a dichotomy.
I quite like live. I've used it for maybe 2 hours in the last 4 months. But those were 2 fun hours (on N+).
You can't have a middle ground with gold. I might play multiplayer maybe 6 hours over the year. Thats not worth the money to me. But with the Wii at least I'm encouraged to play without restriction. It's an added bonus.
That and with subscriptions it adds stress. Am I utilising this subscription? Am I getting my moneys worth? Oh god I had a great month gaming but I didn't play on line at all! Thats £4 wasted! That and the development budget of a game doesn't come from Live subs. It comes from expected retail sales. So a great deal of the focus of the budget of the game, if your silver, is based on material you pay for, but don't play.
It's turned something from being a great additional selling point that could draw people in to being something aimed entirely at 'hardcore' gamers. Which I'm not.
Of course depending on how Play and Pay turns out, I may be extending this moan to the Wii as well.
You'd be amazed how far fifty extra dollars a year goes.
That's less then a days extra work on minimum wage. Far less if you're not dirt poor. So really, enlighten a short fat, pasty loser such as myself as to how far it can strech? I mean really, twenty five quid a year? Seriously?
Over here that fifty bucks is the price of another Wii game. Or one and two thirds of a DS game.
It's a lot when you're only bugeted for one or two games a year.
That's not really streching very far. Especially given how much live can add to the lengh you enjoy the games you do own. Maybe you should just be less poor.
Yeah...if you've only budgeted for one or two games a year, then maybe this hobby isn't for you. I mean, who budgets for one game a year? It must have taken you quite a long time to save up for the system itself, right?
You'd be amazed how far fifty extra dollars a year goes.
That's less then a days extra work on minimum wage. Far less if you're not dirt poor. So really, enlighten a short fat, pasty loser such as myself as to how far it can strech? I mean really, twenty five quid a year? Seriously?
Over here that fifty bucks is the price of another Wii game. Or one and two thirds of a DS game.
It's a lot when you're only bugeted for one or two games a year.
That's not really streching very far. Especially given how much live can add to the lengh you enjoy the games you do own. Maybe you should just be less poor.
Yeah...if you've only budgeted for one or two games a year, then maybe this hobby isn't for you. I mean, who budgets for one game a year? It must have taken you quite a long time to save up for the system itself, right?
FOR FUCKS SAKE
The argument isn't
Person A: "Live costs a lot"
Person B: "No it isn't, it is cheap"
The argument is:
Person A: "Live cost a lot for what it is worth to me"
Person B: "OH I UNDERSTAND I'LL SHUT UP THEN."
COMPUTING TIME!
Whilst COST OF A GAME = COST OF LIVE
If FUN FROM GAME > FUN FROM LIVE then BUY GAME.
Lots of people do just that. And dicking on people for the amount of games they plan to buy in a year makes you look like an elitist cunt.
Did I ever say my gaming budget was one or two games a year? Hardly. I know people who are gamers with children though, and they don't buy more than one or two games a year.
I wouldn't pay for Live even if it was five dollars a year. I already have all the free online I could ever want between the Wii, DS, and PC.
You'd be amazed how far fifty extra dollars a year goes.
That's less then a days extra work on minimum wage. Far less if you're not dirt poor. So really, enlighten a short fat, pasty loser such as myself as to how far it can strech? I mean really, twenty five quid a year? Seriously?
Over here that fifty bucks is the price of another Wii game. Or one and two thirds of a DS game.
It's a lot when you're only bugeted for one or two games a year.
That's not really streching very far. Especially given how much live can add to the lengh you enjoy the games you do own. Maybe you should just be less poor.
Yeah...if you've only budgeted for one or two games a year, then maybe this hobby isn't for you. I mean, who budgets for one game a year? It must have taken you quite a long time to save up for the system itself, right?
FOR FUCKS SAKE
The argument isn't
Person A: "Live costs a lot"
Person B: "No it isn't, it is cheap"
The argument is:
Person A: "Live cost a lot for what it is worth to me"
Person B: "OH I UNDERSTAND I'LL SHUT UP THEN."
COMPUTING TIME!
Whilst COST OF A GAME = COST OF LIVE
If FUN FROM GAME > FUN FROM LIVE then BUY GAME.
Lots of people do just that. And dicking on people for the amount of games they plan to buy in a year makes you look like an elitist cunt.
Man, settle down with the caps and the name calling. I don't even know what we're talking about anymore. My whole point is that Live doesn't cost much, it's worth it to me, and relative to most other forms of entertainment, it's comparable.
My other point is that anyone who's visiting and posting on a video games message board is probably going to be buying more than one or two games a year.
For the record I don't agree with him on that last point. Hell I get maybe three games a year. I just disagree that £25 is an amount of any real note, and all that follows (maybe you have so much cash to blow because you don't have a girlfriend who would presumably be a decently payed twenty something with few commitments?).
I have no problem spending money on live. But Microsoft has to realize that they're losing that battle. I'm sure they'll go to a free plan at some point, whether or not it's before their next console releases remains to be seen.
I know this won't happen, but I wonder what would happen if they upgraded Silver to include stripped down netplay. No universal in-game buddy list. No cross-game invites. Just basic netplay. People often say that its the extra bells and whistles that make Live worth paying for. I wonder how many of them would let their Gold accounts expire.
Especially given how much live can add to the lengh you enjoy the games you do own.
This isn't really a universal statement. For many, online play doesn't really extend the life of a game that much. Only games with a big emphasis on multiplayer benefit. For the cost of 1 year of Gold, I can pick up 2 budget priced games that will give me way more hours of fun that Gold would, and at the end of the year, I could trade those games in and get a few bucks back if I were so inclined.
My other point is that anyone who's visiting and posting on a video games message board is probably going to be buying more than one or two games a year.
Ugh, this argument. But then it comes down to "Buying five games" versus "Buying 4 games and paying for Live," which is what a lot of people are arguing.
The problem with this discussion is that Live comes into play and then people get sidetracked by the cost vs. no cost discussion, since "free" wins every time. How about this: Compare to the PS3's online service, which is also $0 a year, and is very similar to Nintendo's setup in that online options, voice chat, in-game friends lists and such are all completely up to the developer. But gamers have singular identities across all games, and voice chat is allowed via Bluetooth headsets.
I do wonder why Nintendo chose to make Friend Codes vary by game instead of by identity. The system even comes standard with a method of letting people choose their identities: Miis. If each person only had one Friend Code and only had to trade it with someone once to get that person on all of their Wii online-enabled games, I think a ton of people would be happier. I know that I was desperately hoping for this to be the case, and when Mario Strikers Charged came out I was hopeful this would be the ushering-in of events to come. But alas.
EDIT: And again, I know some people are just philosophically opposed to paying for an online service, but any gamers with a 360 are doing themselves a disservice if they're paying full-price for Live. I've gotten two years of Live service for $40 total, which makes the cost significantly easier to swallow, and deals are immensely easy to find if you spend some time looking. Cheapassgamer for life, y'all.
It's a lot when you're only bugeted for one or two games a year.
But thats exactly what you said...
It is a lot when you are only bugeted for one or two games a year.
This you however, doesn't have to be me. In fact I was talking mainly about a buddy of mine who just got Brawl as probably his only gaming expenditure for the forseeable future. He makes quite a bit of money, but has a kid and another on the way and it just isn't in the cards.
I could have made this a lot clearer, and my lack of proofreading just shows how lazy one gets when one comes back from vacation.
It's a lot when you're only bugeted for one or two games a year.
But thats exactly what you said...
It is a lot when you are only bugeted for one or two games a year.
This you however, doesn't have to be me. In fact I was talking mainly about a buddy of mine who just got Brawl as probably his only gaming expenditure for the forseeable future. He makes quite a bit of money, but has a kid and another on the way and it just isn't in the cards.
If he has a kid and another on the way, something tells me that extra 50 a year isn't going to go towards a game.
You'd be amazed how far fifty extra dollars a year goes.
That's less then a days extra work on minimum wage. Far less if you're not dirt poor. So really, enlighten a short fat, pasty loser such as myself as to how far it can strech? I mean really, twenty five quid a year? Seriously?
Over here that fifty bucks is the price of another Wii game. Or one and two thirds of a DS game.
It's a lot when you're only bugeted for one or two games a year.
That's not really streching very far. Especially given how much live can add to the lengh you enjoy the games you do own. Maybe you should just be less poor.
Yeah...if you've only budgeted for one or two games a year, then maybe this hobby isn't for you. I mean, who budgets for one game a year? It must have taken you quite a long time to save up for the system itself, right?
FOR FUCKS SAKE
The argument isn't
Person A: "Live costs a lot"
Person B: "No it isn't, it is cheap"
The argument is:
Person A: "Live cost a lot for what it is worth to me"
Person B: "OH I UNDERSTAND I'LL SHUT UP THEN."
COMPUTING TIME!
Whilst COST OF A GAME = COST OF LIVE
If FUN FROM GAME > FUN FROM LIVE then BUY GAME.
Lots of people do just that. And dicking on people for the amount of games they plan to buy in a year makes you look like an elitist cunt.
Man, settle down with the caps and the name calling. I don't even know what we're talking about anymore. My whole point is that Live doesn't cost much, it's worth it to me, and relative to most other forms of entertainment, it's comparable.
My other point is that anyone who's visiting and posting on a video games message board is probably going to be buying more than one or two games a year.
The bold has been apparent from the start.
You've not seen saying that it worth it to you. Your saying that it is worth it. And that it is cheap. But you've now acknowladge that both of those things are relative to the person. So we are done.
To me the Wii has a much better on line service. Because it is free. And for the amount of "fun" I get from on-line multiplayer - I'll gladly take a lack of voice chat and buddy list in exchange for £40 in my pocket.
I agree with Lave, it's servicable and fun. I was giggling like a maniac trying to coordinate a co-op home run with someone, and it was totally more fun because we couldn't talk, we had to just play it by ear. We screwed up so many times but it was awesome.
It offers just enough functionality to be perfectly satisfying for most people who are not the hardcore online type.
To me the Wii has a much better on line service. Because it is free. And for the amount of "fun" I get from on-line multiplayer - I'll gladly take a lack of voice chat and buddy list in exchange for £40 in my pocket.
Just so I'm clear, because I'm a little slow, as you've proven to everyone reading...
What you're saying is that, to you, the Wii has a much better online service than Live. Is that correct?
Ha, Kuribo's got a point. But I'm far happier with free multiplayer I'll almost never play on GH III on the Wii. Than multiplayer I'll almost never play on GH III that costs £5 a month.
I was just talking about 'in principle' and I think it's more important for the Wii to keep on line free, even if it's a worse service, just so that their is no barrier to trying it out. Getting people into it in the first place. Growing the audience that they so like doing.
I agree with Lave, it's servicable and fun. I was giggling like a maniac trying to coordinate a co-op home run with someone, and it was totally more fun because we couldn't talk, we had to just play it by ear. We screwed up so many times but it was awesome.
It offers just enough functionality to be perfectly satisfying for most people who are not the hardcore online type.
By sheer virtue of being online it's for the hardcore? Also I'd argue it isn't sufficent or even satisfactory, it could be vastly improved in many respects as PS3s online demonstrates.
I mean, I don't disagree that Live doesn't really offer much that justifies the price, but it works a hell of a lot better than WFC for me, at least. and there comes a point where "at least it's free" just doesn't cut it anymore. and now they're trying to charge for certain things, which makes no sense to me at all.
To me the Wii has a much better on line service. Because it is free. And for the amount of "fun" I get from on-line multiplayer - I'll gladly take a lack of voice chat and buddy list in exchange for £40 in my pocket.
Just so I'm clear, because I'm a little slow, as you've proven to everyone reading...
What you're saying is that, to you, the Wii has a much better online service than Live. Is that correct?
Yes. 100%. I stand by that.
I understand it's technically massive inferior. But it's a passable free service. And thats far more valuable to me than a pay to play service. Because I barely use either.
I do love the 360's on line leaderboards though. And the Wii: pay to play service worries me greatly.
Posts
No matter how many times you say 'FOUR DOLLARS FOUR DOLLARS!" It doesn't change the fact that it adds up to $200-250. To a lot of people, that's just not worth it for an in-game buddy list.
You know what else adult wages go towards paying?
Rent
Utilities
Girlfriend/Wife/Children
You'd be amazed how far fifty extra dollars a year goes.
Of course knowing this board the third option might not be that common.
Fuck if I kept plugging away with my current job without ever having option three I'd be driving a fancy car and put a down payment on a giant house right now. You can get away with having a giant gaming budget even on a shitty job if you don't mind being a friendless pasty loner.
Just because I'm an adult pulling an adults wage doesn't mean I've decided it fine and sensible for me to spend much more on gaming than I used to as a teen.
2009 is a year of Updates - one every Monday. Hopefully. xx
While I hadn't even thought about this (mostly because the only non-Nintendo system I own is a PS2 for playing RPGs), and I would much rather hang onto local multiplayer options than give them up for online play, I would hope Nintendo could improve the one without sacrificing the other.
I like the fact that Nintendo focuses on multiplayer where your siting together.
I do miss voice chat, just because it's simpler than ringer your mate. But Lunker says it perfectly. I use wifi matches to play people I know.
I do love 'high score' table battles with inter-friends however.
2009 is a year of Updates - one every Monday. Hopefully. xx
Oh yeah, I'm not saying they should give up on one of them, I was just stating that it's nice to have a system that supports local multiplayer this gen.
It seems that Sony and Microsoft are so obsessed with pushing everything online that they're forgetting about good old fashioned 'elbow your friend in the ribs because he snuck up on you' local multiplayer.
So while I agree that Nintendo's online structure is crap, and would like to see more out of it, the silver lining of that cloud is that they still have to focus on plain old offline multiplayer.
Poor boy, you must have missed the whole arcade scene.
My friend and I played MarioKart DS weekly over the phone a while back.
But my experiences on line with strangers have been mixed.
2009 is a year of Updates - one every Monday. Hopefully. xx
Bah, the Arcade scene didn't need voice chat, since it supported local multiplayer. :P
The good new is ventrilo is free. I've actually recently been using my 360 to chat with friends while I play Wii games online with them. Obviously, this isn't ideal, but it gets the job done.
It might be that I don't have enough 360 friends online, but the voice chat has never been a big selling point for me. I mean, most of the time no one's saying anything anyway, especially during a heated game. And if they are talking alot, it's usually stuff I don't really care to hear.
The TV argument really gets me. If you were able to pay $4.62 a day for TV, then $4.17 a month for a gaming service, being less than 1/30 than the budget for the TV, should have been insignificant, or else the $4.62 a day should have been a major place to start cutting back unless it was your livelihood. But apparently when discussing Live it becomes impossible to make these kinds of judgments on the value of a dollar over any given time interval. (EDIT: Wait, was this talking about the cost of the TV itself? Well, never mind, I guess. It just struck me that $140/month for TV seems like a lot even now, with all the fancy digital options being offered)
if you buy 4 games a year over all platforms, and play for a total of 3 hours over those 12 months, then, yeah, Live is probably a poor investment. In general, though, on this board I see a lot of (alleged) impulse buys, people who talk about buying multiple 360s or DSes, who pick up a GBA Micro just because, and every single time someone asks, "Should I get xx or yy", invariably someone says "both" and half the time the OP does. In this kind of environment I do get a bit scrunchy eyed when the cost of Live becomes a major point of contention.
That's less then a days extra work on minimum wage. Far less if you're not dirt poor. So really, enlighten a short fat, pasty loser such as myself as to how far it can strech? I mean really, twenty five quid a year? Seriously?
The Dreamcast had more robust online than the Wii currently does. Hell, the Nintendo DS has more robust online by virtue of the fact it has voice chat.
Over here that fifty bucks is the price of another Wii game. Or one and two thirds of a DS game.
It's a lot when you're only bugeted for one or two games a year.
Besides now we are wildly off topic.
The next real proof of concept Wii online game isn't really Mario Kart, which will be servicable, but Animal Crossing. That's the one I'm interested in seeing.
Well, its very easy to justify spending X amount of dollars on some game. A game is fun in and of itself. When you're talking about Live, it gets a little cloudier. Live isn't fun all by itself, it can only enhance the fun of other stuff you already spent money on. Then there are the people with multiple game platforms. Many of us have PCs are even PS3s. If we really want to play online, we can do so for free.
I know for some, who primarily play 360, and can't stand to play offline, Live Gold is essential. But for people like me, Gold isn't essential, and doesn't offer me as much fun as spending that money on more games.
But last week I bought CoD4 and Xbox Live. And now I'm considering not bothering with WFC at all. In fact, with the Smash release in Europe, I'm kind of considering giving up on Nintendo all together. I'll play Zelda and Mario, hell, I'd buy consoles for those games. But I'm so disillusioned with them right now, I'm totally fed up of being treated like shit. I feel like a king with my 360 and I quite like it. Rare in Europe.
That's not really streching very far. Especially given how much live can add to the lengh you enjoy the games you do own. Maybe you should just be less poor.
Ah you see at least this argument makes sense. I agree. It clearly is an issue of worth. But thats exactly why I find it frustrating. I've no problem spending money on a game (though my time in the bargain thread makes it clear how I approach that) but the issue is that Live makes it a dichotomy of choice. To use on-line multiplayer or not. But actual use of on-line multiplayer is anything but a dichotomy.
I quite like live. I've used it for maybe 2 hours in the last 4 months. But those were 2 fun hours (on N+).
You can't have a middle ground with gold. I might play multiplayer maybe 6 hours over the year. Thats not worth the money to me. But with the Wii at least I'm encouraged to play without restriction. It's an added bonus.
That and with subscriptions it adds stress. Am I utilising this subscription? Am I getting my moneys worth? Oh god I had a great month gaming but I didn't play on line at all! Thats £4 wasted! That and the development budget of a game doesn't come from Live subs. It comes from expected retail sales. So a great deal of the focus of the budget of the game, if your silver, is based on material you pay for, but don't play.
It's turned something from being a great additional selling point that could draw people in to being something aimed entirely at 'hardcore' gamers. Which I'm not.
Of course depending on how Play and Pay turns out, I may be extending this moan to the Wii as well.
2009 is a year of Updates - one every Monday. Hopefully. xx
Yeah...if you've only budgeted for one or two games a year, then maybe this hobby isn't for you. I mean, who budgets for one game a year? It must have taken you quite a long time to save up for the system itself, right?
The argument isn't
Person A: "Live costs a lot"
Person B: "No it isn't, it is cheap"
The argument is:
Person A: "Live cost a lot for what it is worth to me"
Person B: "OH I UNDERSTAND I'LL SHUT UP THEN."
COMPUTING TIME!
Whilst COST OF A GAME = COST OF LIVE
If FUN FROM GAME > FUN FROM LIVE then BUY GAME.
Lots of people do just that. And dicking on people for the amount of games they plan to buy in a year makes you look like an elitist cunt.
2009 is a year of Updates - one every Monday. Hopefully. xx
I wouldn't pay for Live even if it was five dollars a year. I already have all the free online I could ever want between the Wii, DS, and PC.
Man, settle down with the caps and the name calling. I don't even know what we're talking about anymore. My whole point is that Live doesn't cost much, it's worth it to me, and relative to most other forms of entertainment, it's comparable.
My other point is that anyone who's visiting and posting on a video games message board is probably going to be buying more than one or two games a year.
Maybe you should be less fat. Oh wait not so easy is it?
At the end of the day, Live is too expensive for some people. You just sound retarded when you argue against this.
Hahahahahaha. Son, I'm anything but fat.
Edit: So, yeah this is really going off topic, if anyone wants to continue this fire off a pm to me.
But thats exactly what you said...
Pokemon Safari - Sneasel, Pawniard, ????
I know this won't happen, but I wonder what would happen if they upgraded Silver to include stripped down netplay. No universal in-game buddy list. No cross-game invites. Just basic netplay. People often say that its the extra bells and whistles that make Live worth paying for. I wonder how many of them would let their Gold accounts expire.
This isn't really a universal statement. For many, online play doesn't really extend the life of a game that much. Only games with a big emphasis on multiplayer benefit. For the cost of 1 year of Gold, I can pick up 2 budget priced games that will give me way more hours of fun that Gold would, and at the end of the year, I could trade those games in and get a few bucks back if I were so inclined.
Ugh, this argument. But then it comes down to "Buying five games" versus "Buying 4 games and paying for Live," which is what a lot of people are arguing.
The problem with this discussion is that Live comes into play and then people get sidetracked by the cost vs. no cost discussion, since "free" wins every time. How about this: Compare to the PS3's online service, which is also $0 a year, and is very similar to Nintendo's setup in that online options, voice chat, in-game friends lists and such are all completely up to the developer. But gamers have singular identities across all games, and voice chat is allowed via Bluetooth headsets.
I do wonder why Nintendo chose to make Friend Codes vary by game instead of by identity. The system even comes standard with a method of letting people choose their identities: Miis. If each person only had one Friend Code and only had to trade it with someone once to get that person on all of their Wii online-enabled games, I think a ton of people would be happier. I know that I was desperately hoping for this to be the case, and when Mario Strikers Charged came out I was hopeful this would be the ushering-in of events to come. But alas.
EDIT: And again, I know some people are just philosophically opposed to paying for an online service, but any gamers with a 360 are doing themselves a disservice if they're paying full-price for Live. I've gotten two years of Live service for $40 total, which makes the cost significantly easier to swallow, and deals are immensely easy to find if you spend some time looking. Cheapassgamer for life, y'all.
It is a lot when you are only bugeted for one or two games a year.
This you however, doesn't have to be me. In fact I was talking mainly about a buddy of mine who just got Brawl as probably his only gaming expenditure for the forseeable future. He makes quite a bit of money, but has a kid and another on the way and it just isn't in the cards.
I could have made this a lot clearer, and my lack of proofreading just shows how lazy one gets when one comes back from vacation.
If he has a kid and another on the way, something tells me that extra 50 a year isn't going to go towards a game.
Pokemon Safari - Sneasel, Pawniard, ????
The bold has been apparent from the start.
You've not seen saying that it worth it to you. Your saying that it is worth it. And that it is cheap. But you've now acknowladge that both of those things are relative to the person. So we are done.
To me the Wii has a much better on line service. Because it is free. And for the amount of "fun" I get from on-line multiplayer - I'll gladly take a lack of voice chat and buddy list in exchange for £40 in my pocket.
2009 is a year of Updates - one every Monday. Hopefully. xx
sure is awesome getting that kind of quality frustation free of charge
It offers just enough functionality to be perfectly satisfying for most people who are not the hardcore online type.
My Let's Play Channel: https://youtube.com/channel/UC2go70QLfwGq-hW4nvUqmog
Just so I'm clear, because I'm a little slow, as you've proven to everyone reading...
What you're saying is that, to you, the Wii has a much better online service than Live. Is that correct?
I was just talking about 'in principle' and I think it's more important for the Wii to keep on line free, even if it's a worse service, just so that their is no barrier to trying it out. Getting people into it in the first place. Growing the audience that they so like doing.
Thats why pay and play worries me.
2009 is a year of Updates - one every Monday. Hopefully. xx
By sheer virtue of being online it's for the hardcore? Also I'd argue it isn't sufficent or even satisfactory, it could be vastly improved in many respects as PS3s online demonstrates.
Yes. 100%. I stand by that.
I understand it's technically massive inferior. But it's a passable free service. And thats far more valuable to me than a pay to play service. Because I barely use either.
I do love the 360's on line leaderboards though. And the Wii: pay to play service worries me greatly.
2009 is a year of Updates - one every Monday. Hopefully. xx