Hypothetical: What if the PS4 and XB1 have severe droughts while the Wii U...

#11StevenTheGamblePosted 11/6/2013 12:22:35 AM
Hey uhh I'm just gunna squeeze in here and say
Bong buddy. You must pay to enjoy your online ps4 games. Over the course of the gen you will pay for another ps4 just to play online.
Us wii u gamers may lack online capabilities in certain areas
But hey I can always go huntt the Lagiacrus by myself or train my Pokemon to a higher level
Or take selfies in wwhd and send them out to others as I challenge myself to hero mode to prepare for Zelda wii u! You seem to forget there was a time before online multiplayer

Oh and I'll take one of those pretzel burgers from wendies please, make it a combo
#12TVisaPosted 11/6/2013 12:26:51 AM
hypothetical: what if cars ran on spit?
---
TV raised me, and I turned out tv. -Homer Simpson
#13StarBladeEdgePosted 11/6/2013 2:46:23 AM
Dannyson97 posted...
Then they would have droughts, and most fanboys will say how Sony and Microsoft are just as doomed. Us more civilized fans will keep it to ourselves.


ohhhh you good civilized fans ....

or y'all are just cowards who don't have a voice ! this is why people like you never change or build anything !
---
Boujng ! i always post drunk dr. boing is soulboy. don't touch my iPhat
#14Shadowbird_RHPosted 11/6/2013 3:29:07 AM
Would Wii U fanboys need to say anything?
---
Surrender and I will destroy you peacefully.
R.E.G.I.S. mk5 - Megas XLR
#15Dannyson97Posted 11/6/2013 6:07:22 AM
StarBladeEdge posted...
Dannyson97 posted...
Then they would have droughts, and most fanboys will say how Sony and Microsoft are just as doomed. Us more civilized fans will keep it to ourselves.


ohhhh you good civilized fans ....

or y'all are just cowards who don't have a voice ! this is why people like you never change or build anything !


Would you rather have us civilized or screaming fanboys!
---
I'm pro Nintendo, my friend is pro Sony,
my other friend is pro Microsoft.
#16JackalPosted 11/6/2013 6:11:55 AM
A drought for the new systems would be talked about but excepted because they ARE new systems. But like it was stated, online features can keep one playing a single game, if it's good, for a long time. I can still find people to pay Dead Space 3 with. And MHP3rd HD.

The Wii U has been out for a year now. The slow trickle of games at this point will be seen as inexcusable. Even with the game delays for the Watchdogs and Drive Club and whatever other title fell into this, the new release dates aren't a year away, at least not yet anyway.

As for paying to use the online feature in some games, it's not new news anymore. everyone knows about it. Everyone has decided if they will or will not do it. Most of us have had PS+ for years and our subscriptions don't even expire until some time next year. Our accounts carry over across all the Sony platforms and some of the digital PS3 games will be playable on the PS4. We, or I at least, just don't know which one yet. PS3? PS2? PSN? Mini? I'm not clear on that yet. So talking about the extra cost totals for PS+ over the life time of the console is ridiculous. What was the sum of LIVE! memberships for the life of the Xbox? The 360? What about the XB1? Can someone tell me those? I haven't heard about those. Why not? Because it has become an excepted cost and quite honestly, no one cares anymore.

So let's see about these annual cost.

PS+ - $50
Netflix single stream, no disc - $96
Amazon Prime - $79
Crunchyroll - $50?
Xbox Live - $60?

Any other annual entertainment cost we want to throw in? We know about these cost and are either willing to pay them or we won't an just won't use the services. Do you all think that Nintendo will have free online forever? You may get it this generation but if they intend to have any kind of decent online infrastructure they will fins out like Sony has that it cost. That cost will be passed on to you, the gamer.
---
PSN: Jackal-5, XBox: Jackal 55 (No, I don't have a 360)
EVE Online: Jonak, Ouya: Zeek_Bronz
#17Crazy_tank51Posted 11/6/2013 6:38:43 AM
What do you mean what if?

Every console has droughts. I doubt The PS4/XB1 will have the drought to the degree Wii U has had, but they are NOT immune to the curse of launch droughts. The problem is while Nintendo can afford to have Wii U sell slow for a time (thanks to 3DS and $15 billion in bank), Sony and MS (Particularly Sony) cannot afford to wait forever for their consoles to take off. They need to sell well beyond the holiday rush or else they'll bleed money they cannot afford to lose.
---
Sega is what EAin't.
3DS: 3909-7785-1874 (Crazytank*) Steam ID: CrazytankXD
#18crowe_1Posted 11/6/2013 9:01:46 AM
Jackal posted...
As for paying to use the online feature in some games, it's not new news anymore. everyone knows about it. Everyone has decided if they will or will not do it. Most of us have had PS+ for years and our subscriptions don't even expire until some time next year. Our accounts carry over across all the Sony platforms and some of the digital PS3 games will be playable on the PS4. We, or I at least, just don't know which one yet. PS3? PS2? PSN? Mini? I'm not clear on that yet. So talking about the extra cost totals for PS+ over the life time of the console is ridiculous. What was the sum of LIVE! memberships for the life of the Xbox? The 360? What about the XB1? Can someone tell me those? I haven't heard about those. Why not? Because it has become an excepted cost and quite honestly, no one cares anymore.

So let's see about these annual cost.

PS+ - $50
Netflix single stream, no disc - $96
Amazon Prime - $79
Crunchyroll - $50?
Xbox Live - $60?

Any other annual entertainment cost we want to throw in? We know about these cost and are either willing to pay them or we won't an just won't use the services. Do you all think that Nintendo will have free online forever? You may get it this generation but if they intend to have any kind of decent online infrastructure they will fins out like Sony has that it cost. That cost will be passed on to you, the gamer.


I disagree with this. Because online fees are accepted does not mean they're okay, or aren't of consequence. It absolutely blows my mind that people have been so brainwashed into defending paying for services that have always been free on PC, and consoles up until recently. The Xbox Live annual fee sucks. I hate that I have to pay $60/year just to play a peer-to-peer game or two online every now and then. At least they're going with full-blown servers this time around, so the money spent on Live will be SOMEWHAT justified. Still, having to pay for online play is absolutely a negative compared to not having to pay for online play. Unless cross-game chat is that important to someone. And, while this is purely speculation, I don't think it's too big of a stretch to say that the reason Sony is getting into this "pay for online" model isn't because the infastructure is so expensive, but because they saw the billions of dollars that MS was making off Live for next-to-nothing, and wanted a piece of that pie.

The fact that I don't want to pay for PS+ every year, too, is a big reason why I want an XB1 over a PS4; I'm already paying for Live. If Nintendo DID start charging for online, that would also suck, as owning three consoles would mean you're paying almost $200/year for online play, which could be spent actually buying games. But the fact is, Nintendo at this time does not charge for online, so I didn't have to spend an extra $60 on online fees to play Monster Hunter 3: Ultimate with other people; instead, I was able to spend that $60 on Lego City, which came out the same day, and was a game I actually wanted. It's one of the reasons I even bothered with a PS3; had online not been free, the system wouldn't have been worth it so much. Luckily, it plays blurays...

And the PS+ free games, while nice I agree, aren't THAT great of a deal considering the games they give you are a) old, and b) not something you're overly interested in to begin with, or you probably would have already bought them. Don't get me wrong; it's still a good service, but it's not AS good as people make it out to be given that the "free" games they give you aren't necessarily games you want or will ever play.

Anyway, I just don't see how anyone can pretend that they're happy to be required to spend money for something that has always been free, or that it's not good not to have to pay.
---
My SSBM combo vids:
http://www.youtube.com/user/crowe1
#19IcedEarthaholicPosted 11/6/2013 9:10:27 AM
crowe_1 posted...


I disagree with this. Because online fees are accepted does not mean they're okay, or aren't of consequence. It absolutely blows my mind that people have been so brainwashed into defending paying for services that have always been free on PC, and consoles up until recently. The Xbox Live annual fee sucks. I hate that I have to pay $60/year just to play a peer-to-peer game or two online every now and then. At least they're going with full-blown servers this time around, so the money spent on Live will be SOMEWHAT justified. Still, having to pay for online play is absolutely a negative compared to not having to pay for online play. Unless cross-game chat is that important to someone. And, while this is purely speculation, I don't think it's too big of a stretch to say that the reason Sony is getting into this "pay for online" model isn't because the infastructure is so expensive, but because they saw the billions of dollars that MS was making off Live for next-to-nothing, and wanted a piece of that pie.

The fact that I don't want to pay for PS+ every year, too, is a big reason why I want an XB1 over a PS4; I'm already paying for Live. If Nintendo DID start charging for online, that would also suck, as owning three consoles would mean you're paying almost $200/year for online play, which could be spent actually buying games. But the fact is, Nintendo at this time does not charge for online, so I didn't have to spend an extra $60 on online fees to play Monster Hunter 3: Ultimate with other people; instead, I was able to spend that $60 on Lego City, which came out the same day, and was a game I actually wanted. It's one of the reasons I even bothered with a PS3; had online not been free, the system wouldn't have been worth it so much. Luckily, it plays blurays...

And the PS+ free games, while nice I agree, aren't THAT great of a deal considering the games they give you are a) old, and b) not something you're overly interested in to begin with, or you probably would have already bought them. Don't get me wrong; it's still a good service, but it's not AS good as people make it out to be given that the "free" games they give you aren't necessarily games you want or will ever play.

Anyway, I just don't see how anyone can pretend that they're happy to be required to spend money for something that has always been free, or that it's not good not to have to pay.


I agree completely, I refuse to even go near the PS4 ir XB1 at this time. Pay to play sucks and you don't own the "free" games PS Plus offers. They go back to demo mode if you let PS Plus expire. It's the classic bait and switch.
---
For all things Fatal Frame join Operation Zero https://www.facebook.com/pages/Operation-Zero/131582506953973
#20darkphiresagePosted 11/6/2013 9:31:30 AM
I don't mind paying for ps+ cuz of all the bonuses. I planned to sub earlier just for my vita, but decided to wait till the ps4 launch. I also certainly won't be paying $50 for it. I'll get 2 years for $60 from gamestop on black friday, and repeat annually till I got 8-10 years worth. I don't mind paying for a quality online experience. hell, I'll be paying less for 2 years of ps+ than I pay for one year of hulu...and that service is s***. (should prolly switch to netflix)
---
"Dat b**** crazy."
"Ya, b****** be trippin." - every guy ever and his best friend at some point in life.