"XBOX ONE is Kinect, we are not going to sell them separately." My how the times have changed.
Hey there everyone, Happy Gamer here, and it's official, Microsoft has stopped manufacturing the Kinect 2.0 for XBOX ONE. Microsoft has finally admitted that the Kinect was a mistake, and are no longer wasting their time with it. For those of you who forgot (and I don't blame you), the Kinect was a motion control device that allowed you to control games without a controller using cameras and infra-red. It would sense joints, articulation, and interpret it as control inputs; as well as various voice commands. Now I will admit, from a purely technological standpoint, it's pretty cool. It's kind of space age sci-fi. Buuuuuttttt...that didn't make it worth while.
First, a brief history. In 2006 Nintendo released a little console called "Wii." It used motion controls as it's native input, and aided by the pack-in title Wii Sports, it became the second best selling console in history. Microsoft seeing the popularity of the Wii, Microsoft decided to make their own motion control device for the XBOX 360 and in 2010 the Kinect was released. It received generally positive reviews with how innovative of technology it was, but it didn't really latch on to gamers. Despite their best efforts to make Kinect a thing, primarily through the use of Rare, Kinect for XBOX 360 never received that killer app that made everyone want buy one like Wii Sports did for the Wii. This lack of an install base made developers not want to develop for it in fear of their game not selling. Microsoft tried to remedy this by bundling a Kinect 2.0 with every XBOX ONE and integrating it's operating system to utilize the face recognition and voice commands, forcing an install base. Unfortunately this made the XBOX ONE $100 more expensive than the PS4 which didn't have a motion control camera and gave gamers the option as to if they wanted the motion controls or not. The requirement to always have it plugged in also really blew up in Microsoft's face as it made many gamers question why Microsoft would want to do that if not for spying on them. Eventually Microsoft reversed the requirement to always have it plugged in, but didn't sell a Kinectless bundle until about a year later. The downfall of the Kinect was further advanced when the XBOX ONE S didn't come with a port specifically for the Kinect. And on October 25th 2017 Microsoft officially stopped production of the Kinect 2.0. See ya later guys, DFTBA.
OK, so with my foot of a ferret rip-off complete, let's analyze what happened and why I saw this coming 3 years ago. Kinect just wasn't a good input device for videogames, plain and simple. I now have a 360 Kinect I got at gamestop for $20 to play star wars Kinect, and it just isn't good. It's not that the controls aren't responsive, or that you need to be far away from the TV (a luxury I don't really have), while those are problems, they could have fixed those and it still would be a turd. Motion controls are just not a good input for videogames. The Wii controller could be used like a conventional gamepad; not very easily with a lot of input options, but it could be done. But not the Kinect. Almost every Kinect game I know of was Kinect only. Even if you fix the unresponsive problem, holding your hand up to an option for 5 seconds to select the menu was tedious. If you want to play the whole "Kinect in tandem" card, I know it can be done. There was an XBOX 360 game that utilized Kinect for certain control inputs but not all (name escapes me at the moment), and I saw some gameplay. Rather cool, but rather tedious to control. I'd rather just have it mapped to a controller button. It just wasn't going to be a good idea, and forcing people to buy it wasn't going to make it successful.
OK, but what about all the other OS features? You know, turning on your xbox by saying "XBOX on" and automatic sign-in based on who's playing. Well...I've been using my xbox for a while now and I don't feel like I'm missing anything. Lets look at the different features: voice commands to turn on the XBOX and select games, using Cortana, automatic sign-in, QR code reader, and skype. I've never used Cortana, and I have no intention to ever start. I'm the only one that uses my XBOX ONE, there's only 1 profile on it (mine), and it signs me in automatically every time I turn it on. Skype? I don't use skype all that much after I graduated college. The only thing that really sort of interests me are the voice commands, and that's just because some things weren't that easy to use (clip recording comes to mind). However, Microsoft has made it much easier to use these features. Now I can record with just the press of 3 buttons, no longer do I have to suspend the game, open the app, and then record. The QR code reader is pretty useful, I'll admit, since entering a 12 digit code with a "hunt and peck" on-screen keyboard using my controller is a little tedious. But, I honestly don't buy enough digital content to really make an impact, plus, I tend to have a lot of trouble lining up the QR code with the little box, so I really don't know which would be easier.
"But the Wii was the 2nd best selling console because of the motion controls." Yes, because it was a good casual gaming device that came out before mobile gaming really took off. People bought Wii sports, and maybe Wii sports resort, because they were good casual games that were pick up and play in a time when there weren't really any casual games (aka, a killer app for the console). After the casual hype died out, the Wii was able to keep a player base with Nintendo exclusive games. Remember the Wii U and how it failed? Well, Nintendo was trying to live off the hype of the Wii, and failed. People just aren't interested anymore. Luckily, Microsoft had a pretty good base console to keep itself afloat. Well, this has been Happy Gamer, signing off, and looks like XBOX ONE ISN'T Kinect.
Thursday, October 26, 2017
Friday, August 4, 2017
12 reasons why I don't care for PC gaming
Oh look, yet another "PC Master Race" article, that got some traction with ReviewTechUSA.
Hey there everyone, Happy Gamer here, and I make it no secret that I'm not a fan of PC gaming. I don't care about all the "benefits," and I'd rather just play my PS4, XBOX ONE, and everything before it. When ReviewTechUSA did a video on this article talking about the benefits, I decided to counter them.
1. "You can play games with better graphics than console - if you have a powerful gaming PC." I don't have a powerful PC, and my PC that costs more than my consoles doesn't provide better graphics than my console. I have to turn down the graphics to below 720 to get a smooth frame rate.
2. "The Steam Game Platform." Steam sucks. It never wants to load on my PC. I also avoid digital as much as I can (even on consoles), because I like physical. I'm a collector, and a digital library will never be a "collection." You say sales "steam sales," I have "store clearance" and "used games." And as a physical gamer, I never have to worry about "this game is off the marketplace, you can never play it now."
3. "You don't have to pay to play multiplayer games on PC, and you save money in the long run." I don't play online games. I play games to avoid people, not interact with the lowest of the low. I actually quite dislike how EVERYTHING has online components now adays.
4. "There are more games for PC than there are for game consoles." Quantity does not equal quality. How many 3rd party exclusive games were there for the Wii? Hundreds probably. How many of them were good? Maybe 10. Most of the good games get console releases, and many exclusives like MMOs and RTSs just aren't my thing. If there's an exclusive like trade winds, I'll get it, but that's not enough to convince me to drop a grand on a PC.
5. "You can download 'mods' for games, which can add fun new content or better graphics." Mods don't interest me. I get the appeal, but I don't care. Next.
6. "You have the freedom to choose how you play on PC." I prefer gamepads, that's all. I don't care if it's a NES, SNES, PlayStation, XBOX ONE, Gamecube, or even the OG XBOX Duke controller. I like gamepads, and I've been using different ones for so many years they all feel natural to me. There are some games that are better with mouse and keyboard, such as roller coaster tycoon or sim city, but otherwise, I'll use my XBOX ONE controller; just like on my console.
7. "You have the choice to play games on feature-packed monitors or your TV." Good for you, but I'm good with my 4:3 CRT or 16:9 LCD. Most games I play have the action that's right in front of you. I don't need this ultra wide field of view.
8. "You're not hogging the TV if you live with someone else." I'm the only one that uses this TV, my parents have their own TVs. This doesn't matter to me. Next.
9. "Building your own PC is fun and satisfying." I don't care how many times you tell me "it's fun," I HAVE ABSOLETELY NO DESIRE TO BUILD A PC! I REALLY hate this argument. You may think it's fun, but I don't. If anything, this is an argument against PC gaming. I hate troubleshooting simple problems that result from expertly built electronics. I REALLY don't want to troubleshoot problems a novice like me created.
10. "And you can decorate it to make it truly yours." Again, not my thing. However, if it is your thing, you can also do that with consoles. I've seen equally cool custom console skins and lights.
11. "And you can go all-out with custom water cooling, too." Even you admit water cooling is tedious. I admit it's a cool novelty, but I prefer to keep my electronic components far away from liquids.
12. "You can upgrade your PC parts to keep up with new games, while console parts become "obsolete" very quickly." And the double edge sword that stings harder than "console obsoleteness" is that you have to worry about your cutting edge capabilities. If I buy a game for my PS4, I know it's going to work on my PS4, plain and simple. I don't have to worry about compatibility and specifications. If the game disk say "xbox one," it's going to work on my xbox one.
At least you didn't bring up the tired "well I can use my PC for all sorts of other things" argument, one I hate just about as much as the "building a PC is fun" argument, but just because it's a straw man in most cases. Yes, your $1500 gaming PC is very capable, and can do lots of things a console can't. But here's the real question, what are you using your PC for? Unless you're doing some serious media rendering or simulation programs, you have ABSOLUTELY NO need for a $1500 PC outside of cutting edge gaming. My dad recently started using a $200 chrome book for all his web browsing and light word processing through google docs. He says "I have no need for a windows based PC, all I need is internet." The only reason I bought a PC instead of a chrome book is because I wanted to do video editing and light gaming. "My PC can stream video," so can my consoles. "My PC can play music, DVDs, and Blu-Rays," so can my console. "My PC can do video chat," so can my console. "My PC can computer can program mods." Are you programing mods? "No, but it can simulate a complex manufacturing environment in 1 hour." Are you doing those simulations? "No, but it can surf the web." So can my console. "Well, my PC can do my taxes." You got me there, but my $300 tower from 8 years ago can do that too.
Look, if you like PC gaming, good for you. It's your opinion. I'm not going to try to convince you to give up your preferred platform. But it's just that, an opinion. It's not "fact" like many try to claim. This has been Happy Gamer, signing off, and console peasant for life. Bye.
Hey there everyone, Happy Gamer here, and I make it no secret that I'm not a fan of PC gaming. I don't care about all the "benefits," and I'd rather just play my PS4, XBOX ONE, and everything before it. When ReviewTechUSA did a video on this article talking about the benefits, I decided to counter them.
1. "You can play games with better graphics than console - if you have a powerful gaming PC." I don't have a powerful PC, and my PC that costs more than my consoles doesn't provide better graphics than my console. I have to turn down the graphics to below 720 to get a smooth frame rate.
2. "The Steam Game Platform." Steam sucks. It never wants to load on my PC. I also avoid digital as much as I can (even on consoles), because I like physical. I'm a collector, and a digital library will never be a "collection." You say sales "steam sales," I have "store clearance" and "used games." And as a physical gamer, I never have to worry about "this game is off the marketplace, you can never play it now."
3. "You don't have to pay to play multiplayer games on PC, and you save money in the long run." I don't play online games. I play games to avoid people, not interact with the lowest of the low. I actually quite dislike how EVERYTHING has online components now adays.
4. "There are more games for PC than there are for game consoles." Quantity does not equal quality. How many 3rd party exclusive games were there for the Wii? Hundreds probably. How many of them were good? Maybe 10. Most of the good games get console releases, and many exclusives like MMOs and RTSs just aren't my thing. If there's an exclusive like trade winds, I'll get it, but that's not enough to convince me to drop a grand on a PC.
5. "You can download 'mods' for games, which can add fun new content or better graphics." Mods don't interest me. I get the appeal, but I don't care. Next.
6. "You have the freedom to choose how you play on PC." I prefer gamepads, that's all. I don't care if it's a NES, SNES, PlayStation, XBOX ONE, Gamecube, or even the OG XBOX Duke controller. I like gamepads, and I've been using different ones for so many years they all feel natural to me. There are some games that are better with mouse and keyboard, such as roller coaster tycoon or sim city, but otherwise, I'll use my XBOX ONE controller; just like on my console.
7. "You have the choice to play games on feature-packed monitors or your TV." Good for you, but I'm good with my 4:3 CRT or 16:9 LCD. Most games I play have the action that's right in front of you. I don't need this ultra wide field of view.
8. "You're not hogging the TV if you live with someone else." I'm the only one that uses this TV, my parents have their own TVs. This doesn't matter to me. Next.
9. "Building your own PC is fun and satisfying." I don't care how many times you tell me "it's fun," I HAVE ABSOLETELY NO DESIRE TO BUILD A PC! I REALLY hate this argument. You may think it's fun, but I don't. If anything, this is an argument against PC gaming. I hate troubleshooting simple problems that result from expertly built electronics. I REALLY don't want to troubleshoot problems a novice like me created.
10. "And you can decorate it to make it truly yours." Again, not my thing. However, if it is your thing, you can also do that with consoles. I've seen equally cool custom console skins and lights.
11. "And you can go all-out with custom water cooling, too." Even you admit water cooling is tedious. I admit it's a cool novelty, but I prefer to keep my electronic components far away from liquids.
12. "You can upgrade your PC parts to keep up with new games, while console parts become "obsolete" very quickly." And the double edge sword that stings harder than "console obsoleteness" is that you have to worry about your cutting edge capabilities. If I buy a game for my PS4, I know it's going to work on my PS4, plain and simple. I don't have to worry about compatibility and specifications. If the game disk say "xbox one," it's going to work on my xbox one.
At least you didn't bring up the tired "well I can use my PC for all sorts of other things" argument, one I hate just about as much as the "building a PC is fun" argument, but just because it's a straw man in most cases. Yes, your $1500 gaming PC is very capable, and can do lots of things a console can't. But here's the real question, what are you using your PC for? Unless you're doing some serious media rendering or simulation programs, you have ABSOLUTELY NO need for a $1500 PC outside of cutting edge gaming. My dad recently started using a $200 chrome book for all his web browsing and light word processing through google docs. He says "I have no need for a windows based PC, all I need is internet." The only reason I bought a PC instead of a chrome book is because I wanted to do video editing and light gaming. "My PC can stream video," so can my consoles. "My PC can play music, DVDs, and Blu-Rays," so can my console. "My PC can do video chat," so can my console. "My PC can computer can program mods." Are you programing mods? "No, but it can simulate a complex manufacturing environment in 1 hour." Are you doing those simulations? "No, but it can surf the web." So can my console. "Well, my PC can do my taxes." You got me there, but my $300 tower from 8 years ago can do that too.
Look, if you like PC gaming, good for you. It's your opinion. I'm not going to try to convince you to give up your preferred platform. But it's just that, an opinion. It's not "fact" like many try to claim. This has been Happy Gamer, signing off, and console peasant for life. Bye.
Nintendo may be growing up, but there are some SERIOUS growing pains.
I'm not against Nintendo doing DLC, I'm just against how they do it.
Hey there everyone, Happy Gamer here, and ReviewTechUSA recently made a video about Nintendo locking content in the upcoming Metroid game behind Amiibos. As is to be expected, people are kind of upset about it, and Rich says "this is just the gaming industry today, companies lock content behind DLC and Nintendo is just joining the party."
Yeah...about that. See, I'm a bit of an Amiibo collector. I try to get all the smash amiibo I can, and some of the others I'm interested in. I'm also pretty sure you said at one point "I don't like Amiibo." So allow me to enlighten you on one complain every Amiibo collector has, NINTENDO DOESN'T KEEP AMIIBO STOCKED!
See, I quite like the idea of Amiibo. They are one time purchases, are compatible with multiple games, and give you something physical. One thing I don't like about DLC is that it's digital (hence the "D" in DLC). I buy my games physical whenever I can so I have something to display. Conventional DLC can't be displayed though, because it's digital. Amiibo on the other hand, can be displayed, and I quite like how my Amiibo look around my TV and on my store display rack. They're also single purchases compatible across multiple games. I can buy 1 figure, and it can work on multiple games. If I guy a call of duty 4 map pack, it only works on call of duty 4. If I buy a Super Mario Amiibo, it works on over 30 games. Even if Nintendo charged $0.50 for each piece of unlockable content on each of those games, it still would be cheaper to just buy a $13 figure, that's going to continue unlocking content in the future. It's actually a really great way to distribute DLC, in concept.
See, here's the Achilles Heel of Amiibo. While conventional DLC doesn't have the benefits of Amiibo, it does have 1 benefit that Nintendo just can't seem to remedy, it's UNLIMITED. If I want to buy that call of duty map pack, I go to the xbox/playstation/steam store, add the DLC to my digital cart, download it, and that's it. I don't have to call 20 gamestops, best buys, toys r us, targets, meijers, and walmarts to see if they have that map pack in stock ultimately to find out they're out of stock. If I want the character skin in street fighter, I just get it from the digital marketplace without any problem. I don't have to buy the DLC months before it's even announced speculating that I'll want the game, just because I know if I don't buy it within the first couple days of release it'll be gone forever. If I want to get the season pass for a game, I just buy the season pass from the unlimited digital reserve. I don't have to pre-order the day pre-orders are announced because the pre-orders are going to sell out the next day. How is that even a thing? Pre-orders are supposed to gauge how much demand there's going to be, and you ship some multiple of the pre-orders to the stores. You don't say "we're only allowing this much demand for this product, consumers be damned." There is an entire sub-reddit dedicated to "how to find amiibo." You don't see that with any other DLC.
Look, I like Amiibo. They are a great concept, as I mentioned above. But if you go to the Amiibo section of the store and it isn't completely empty (as I've seen multiple times), you'll find 1 or 2 common smash series, a booster pack of cards, animal crossing (except villager), and maybe a splatoon. You won't find Kirby series, Zelda series, Mario series, 8-bit series, yarn series, or 80% of the smash series. The Metroid game in the video that uses smash series Samaus and Zero Suit? Good luck finding both full suit and zero suit in stores. Just bought Splatoon 2 and want the unlockable content with the Splatoon 3-pack amiibo? Unless you bought them over 2 years ago, the best you'll be able to do is the Splatoon 2 3-pack, if you're lucky. Little Timmy asks Santa for a Turbo Charged Donkey Kong Amiibo because it can be used in Skylanders, well sorry Timmy, Santa couldn't get you that Amiibo because Santa didn't go to Meijer at midnight because the following morning was the morning of the big presentation. I understand the store's perspective of "I don't want these to sit here for months" (like the Animal Crossing series), but I don't understand why Nintendo won't do more print runs of the really popular ones, especially when new games come out that use them.
In the early days one of the arguments I got frequently from Nintendo apologists was "they're just collectables, like other limited print action figures, it's not like you're missing out on anything if you don't get them." Well, now they're legit DLC, and Nintendo isn't allowing customers to buy it. This has been Happy Gamer, signing off, and instead of Milking us dry, Nintendo is just teasing us. Bye.
Hey there everyone, Happy Gamer here, and ReviewTechUSA recently made a video about Nintendo locking content in the upcoming Metroid game behind Amiibos. As is to be expected, people are kind of upset about it, and Rich says "this is just the gaming industry today, companies lock content behind DLC and Nintendo is just joining the party."
Yeah...about that. See, I'm a bit of an Amiibo collector. I try to get all the smash amiibo I can, and some of the others I'm interested in. I'm also pretty sure you said at one point "I don't like Amiibo." So allow me to enlighten you on one complain every Amiibo collector has, NINTENDO DOESN'T KEEP AMIIBO STOCKED!
See, I quite like the idea of Amiibo. They are one time purchases, are compatible with multiple games, and give you something physical. One thing I don't like about DLC is that it's digital (hence the "D" in DLC). I buy my games physical whenever I can so I have something to display. Conventional DLC can't be displayed though, because it's digital. Amiibo on the other hand, can be displayed, and I quite like how my Amiibo look around my TV and on my store display rack. They're also single purchases compatible across multiple games. I can buy 1 figure, and it can work on multiple games. If I guy a call of duty 4 map pack, it only works on call of duty 4. If I buy a Super Mario Amiibo, it works on over 30 games. Even if Nintendo charged $0.50 for each piece of unlockable content on each of those games, it still would be cheaper to just buy a $13 figure, that's going to continue unlocking content in the future. It's actually a really great way to distribute DLC, in concept.
See, here's the Achilles Heel of Amiibo. While conventional DLC doesn't have the benefits of Amiibo, it does have 1 benefit that Nintendo just can't seem to remedy, it's UNLIMITED. If I want to buy that call of duty map pack, I go to the xbox/playstation/steam store, add the DLC to my digital cart, download it, and that's it. I don't have to call 20 gamestops, best buys, toys r us, targets, meijers, and walmarts to see if they have that map pack in stock ultimately to find out they're out of stock. If I want the character skin in street fighter, I just get it from the digital marketplace without any problem. I don't have to buy the DLC months before it's even announced speculating that I'll want the game, just because I know if I don't buy it within the first couple days of release it'll be gone forever. If I want to get the season pass for a game, I just buy the season pass from the unlimited digital reserve. I don't have to pre-order the day pre-orders are announced because the pre-orders are going to sell out the next day. How is that even a thing? Pre-orders are supposed to gauge how much demand there's going to be, and you ship some multiple of the pre-orders to the stores. You don't say "we're only allowing this much demand for this product, consumers be damned." There is an entire sub-reddit dedicated to "how to find amiibo." You don't see that with any other DLC.
Look, I like Amiibo. They are a great concept, as I mentioned above. But if you go to the Amiibo section of the store and it isn't completely empty (as I've seen multiple times), you'll find 1 or 2 common smash series, a booster pack of cards, animal crossing (except villager), and maybe a splatoon. You won't find Kirby series, Zelda series, Mario series, 8-bit series, yarn series, or 80% of the smash series. The Metroid game in the video that uses smash series Samaus and Zero Suit? Good luck finding both full suit and zero suit in stores. Just bought Splatoon 2 and want the unlockable content with the Splatoon 3-pack amiibo? Unless you bought them over 2 years ago, the best you'll be able to do is the Splatoon 2 3-pack, if you're lucky. Little Timmy asks Santa for a Turbo Charged Donkey Kong Amiibo because it can be used in Skylanders, well sorry Timmy, Santa couldn't get you that Amiibo because Santa didn't go to Meijer at midnight because the following morning was the morning of the big presentation. I understand the store's perspective of "I don't want these to sit here for months" (like the Animal Crossing series), but I don't understand why Nintendo won't do more print runs of the really popular ones, especially when new games come out that use them.
In the early days one of the arguments I got frequently from Nintendo apologists was "they're just collectables, like other limited print action figures, it's not like you're missing out on anything if you don't get them." Well, now they're legit DLC, and Nintendo isn't allowing customers to buy it. This has been Happy Gamer, signing off, and instead of Milking us dry, Nintendo is just teasing us. Bye.
Wednesday, February 22, 2017
Why Nintendo Shouldn't Charge for Online
"Everyone else does it, so why shouldn't Nintendo?"
Hey there everyone, Happy Gamer here and Nintendo is finally joining Sony and Microsoft in the "pay for online" game. I'm sure I'm with the majority here when I say "Nintendo, this is NOT what we meant when we said 'you need to be more like your competitors'." Paying to play online is the largest scam in the gaming industry (well, one of the largest). By and large it doesn't add anything. The servers are hosted by the developers (they don't get any of the membership money) and the paid experience normally isn't enhanced at all compared to the free counterpart if there is one (see PC, PS2, PS3, Wii, and Wii U compared to XBOX, XBOX 360, XBOX ONE, and PS4). They now "give you a game or 10 with your subscription" (games with gold, ps plus, and now switch online), and you no longer NEED premium to use online apps (old 360 days), but it's still not really an excuse. I estimate that 99.99999% of gamers don't like paying a monthly fee to play online. I know I sure don't.
I have never paid for a console's premium online service, and I have no intention to start. First off, I don't really care for playing online. The only game I do that with is splatoon, but by and large I prefer to play single player. I know I'm the minority in today's internet connected and competitive gaming world, but I like to play by myself, because I'm generally a-social. I wouldn't go so far as to say "introverted" (I make goofy internet videos, wear florescent yellow as a normal staple of my wardrobe, and have worn a blue morph suit in public on various occasions), but when I want to relax, I like to do things by myself. But even if I did like online, I don't play videogames enough to justify the subscription. When I pay for something, I feel the need to use it. I subscribe to hulu plus, and I watch a lot of hulu on my devices as a result. I have amazon prime, and I made sure I bought enough things with free shipping to justify the subscription. If I were to subscribe to one of these premium online services, I don't think I would play enough to justify the subscription, and as such would stop subscribing, and would probably get into PC gaming since that's free.
"But Microsoft and Sony do it, why shouldn't Nintendo. If console gamers are willing to pay for online, then Nintendo is selling themselves short." That's a largely reasonable argument I've heard from defenders. They aren't exactly happy with it, but they argue that it's just smart business. And I would agree, if it wouldn't be a major selling point. See, Nintendo says "no, seriously, we're getting the 3rd party games this time around; the Nintendo Switch is going to be your one stop shop for videogames." There's a lot of speculation that the Switch isn't going to be as powerful as base XBOX ONE and PS4, and it's known that Nintendo is shipping it with only 32 gigs of internal storage (though with flash memory for the games I don't know how big of a problem that will be if data can be written to the games), and many people are still salty about the Wii U. However, if Nintendo offers free online, that's a major selling point.
"Hmm, the game looks nicer but I need to pay $10 a month to play online on PS4/XBOX, or the game looks worse but I can play FOR FREE on the Switch." Personally, I would go with free. That could be a major selling point. "Play for free on Nintendo Switch." That would make the decision to buy a Switch easier (or the decision to not buy a switch harder to make). Or if you have multiple consoles (like me), the option of buying for the Switch that much more appealing.
Hopefully Nintendo decides against pay for online. This has been Happy Gamer, signing off, and this could have been your slogan; "Play for free on the Switch, Nintendoes what the others don't."
Hey there everyone, Happy Gamer here and Nintendo is finally joining Sony and Microsoft in the "pay for online" game. I'm sure I'm with the majority here when I say "Nintendo, this is NOT what we meant when we said 'you need to be more like your competitors'." Paying to play online is the largest scam in the gaming industry (well, one of the largest). By and large it doesn't add anything. The servers are hosted by the developers (they don't get any of the membership money) and the paid experience normally isn't enhanced at all compared to the free counterpart if there is one (see PC, PS2, PS3, Wii, and Wii U compared to XBOX, XBOX 360, XBOX ONE, and PS4). They now "give you a game or 10 with your subscription" (games with gold, ps plus, and now switch online), and you no longer NEED premium to use online apps (old 360 days), but it's still not really an excuse. I estimate that 99.99999% of gamers don't like paying a monthly fee to play online. I know I sure don't.
I have never paid for a console's premium online service, and I have no intention to start. First off, I don't really care for playing online. The only game I do that with is splatoon, but by and large I prefer to play single player. I know I'm the minority in today's internet connected and competitive gaming world, but I like to play by myself, because I'm generally a-social. I wouldn't go so far as to say "introverted" (I make goofy internet videos, wear florescent yellow as a normal staple of my wardrobe, and have worn a blue morph suit in public on various occasions), but when I want to relax, I like to do things by myself. But even if I did like online, I don't play videogames enough to justify the subscription. When I pay for something, I feel the need to use it. I subscribe to hulu plus, and I watch a lot of hulu on my devices as a result. I have amazon prime, and I made sure I bought enough things with free shipping to justify the subscription. If I were to subscribe to one of these premium online services, I don't think I would play enough to justify the subscription, and as such would stop subscribing, and would probably get into PC gaming since that's free.
"But Microsoft and Sony do it, why shouldn't Nintendo. If console gamers are willing to pay for online, then Nintendo is selling themselves short." That's a largely reasonable argument I've heard from defenders. They aren't exactly happy with it, but they argue that it's just smart business. And I would agree, if it wouldn't be a major selling point. See, Nintendo says "no, seriously, we're getting the 3rd party games this time around; the Nintendo Switch is going to be your one stop shop for videogames." There's a lot of speculation that the Switch isn't going to be as powerful as base XBOX ONE and PS4, and it's known that Nintendo is shipping it with only 32 gigs of internal storage (though with flash memory for the games I don't know how big of a problem that will be if data can be written to the games), and many people are still salty about the Wii U. However, if Nintendo offers free online, that's a major selling point.
"Hmm, the game looks nicer but I need to pay $10 a month to play online on PS4/XBOX, or the game looks worse but I can play FOR FREE on the Switch." Personally, I would go with free. That could be a major selling point. "Play for free on Nintendo Switch." That would make the decision to buy a Switch easier (or the decision to not buy a switch harder to make). Or if you have multiple consoles (like me), the option of buying for the Switch that much more appealing.
Hopefully Nintendo decides against pay for online. This has been Happy Gamer, signing off, and this could have been your slogan; "Play for free on the Switch, Nintendoes what the others don't."
Thursday, February 9, 2017
Nintendo Switch Won't Have a Browser at Launch, and Why that's a Bad Thing
"Why do you care if the Switch won't have a web browser? Do you use your console web browser at all? The only people harmed will be horny kids who don't have a computer."
When I first heard the news that the Nintendo Switch won't have a web browser, that was basically my first thoughts too. Before I got a computer, I did use the Nintendo DS browser a lot to read wikipedia, but then I got a computer and I barely even open the browsers on my game consoles.
Well...in the comments of the ReviewTechUSA video I heard the news on, I had a major realization on why this is a problem.
"I DO care, how else am I going to login on my university wifi?????"
And this got me thinking, "yes, that is the primary reason I use the web browser on my 3DS."
See, at my old university, to connect your device was more than "enter the router password." After connecting to the wifi, you had to open a web page and log in with your student ID and register your device. If you didn't do that, you wouldn't be able to use hulu, netfix, youtube, or online gaming. If you tried to connect without registering the device by saying "I accept the TOS, register this device to my student account" in the web browser, you couldn't use it.
"OK, that sucks for students and faculty, but that's only...half of the target audience. But I'm not a student, so it's not a problem for me."
Yeah I had that thought as well, but then I remembered when I go places with public wifi, such as fast food restaurants and hotels, especially hotels. I could live without restaurants since I'm normally not there for extended periods of time. But when I go to hotels, I want to connect my device to the internet to use internet apps. At hotels, I like to watch hulu on my 3DS while I surf the web on my laptop. And when I go to hotels, probably 3/4 times I need to open the web browser and say "I accept the TOS" before I can watch hulu. There's also airport wifi. Almost always, if you want to use their wifi, you NEED to sign in at the browser landing page and purchase credits/enter promotional codes.
I get it, the web browser is an easy back door for hacking consoles, and Nintendo doesn't want people hacking their consoles. Also, most people don't use the web browsers with all the better devices for surfing. But it's kind of important for using the internet in many situations. It's a hybrid semi-portable console that I'm guessing many owners will take with their Switches with them on trips, and a reality of those trips will be "I need to go to the in browser log in page to connect to the wifi so I can do various internet connected activities." Plus, it's very tablet like, so people may want to use it for tablet browsing.
Well, this has been Happy Gamer, signing off, and hopefully Nintendo has a solution for "I need a browser to access internet functions."
When I first heard the news that the Nintendo Switch won't have a web browser, that was basically my first thoughts too. Before I got a computer, I did use the Nintendo DS browser a lot to read wikipedia, but then I got a computer and I barely even open the browsers on my game consoles.
Well...in the comments of the ReviewTechUSA video I heard the news on, I had a major realization on why this is a problem.
"I DO care, how else am I going to login on my university wifi?????"
And this got me thinking, "yes, that is the primary reason I use the web browser on my 3DS."
See, at my old university, to connect your device was more than "enter the router password." After connecting to the wifi, you had to open a web page and log in with your student ID and register your device. If you didn't do that, you wouldn't be able to use hulu, netfix, youtube, or online gaming. If you tried to connect without registering the device by saying "I accept the TOS, register this device to my student account" in the web browser, you couldn't use it.
"OK, that sucks for students and faculty, but that's only...half of the target audience. But I'm not a student, so it's not a problem for me."
Yeah I had that thought as well, but then I remembered when I go places with public wifi, such as fast food restaurants and hotels, especially hotels. I could live without restaurants since I'm normally not there for extended periods of time. But when I go to hotels, I want to connect my device to the internet to use internet apps. At hotels, I like to watch hulu on my 3DS while I surf the web on my laptop. And when I go to hotels, probably 3/4 times I need to open the web browser and say "I accept the TOS" before I can watch hulu. There's also airport wifi. Almost always, if you want to use their wifi, you NEED to sign in at the browser landing page and purchase credits/enter promotional codes.
I get it, the web browser is an easy back door for hacking consoles, and Nintendo doesn't want people hacking their consoles. Also, most people don't use the web browsers with all the better devices for surfing. But it's kind of important for using the internet in many situations. It's a hybrid semi-portable console that I'm guessing many owners will take with their Switches with them on trips, and a reality of those trips will be "I need to go to the in browser log in page to connect to the wifi so I can do various internet connected activities." Plus, it's very tablet like, so people may want to use it for tablet browsing.
Well, this has been Happy Gamer, signing off, and hopefully Nintendo has a solution for "I need a browser to access internet functions."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)