@Blueresident87 said:
The only way the service will get better is if people pay for it.
People can say whatever they want about Microsoft and Sony charging for their service, but it seems like a very obvious reason why their services are so much stronger. I'm not sure which comes first the money or the quality, but Microsoft has always charged for their online and it has always been good. It's evolved over time and Sony has followed suite. Nintendo never did, and the service is pretty bad now.
I'm not a fan of paying for usage of the Internet, but it's a model that is tough to argue against (not to mention impossible, because there's nothing that can be done) at this point.
It is a weird scenario really.
When Xbox Live came out, it blew the balls off of previous online offerings in the console space. It wasn't even close, they offered a fully integrated organized system for online gaming right off the bat, and had the games to support it. It was a whole new experience on consoles and gamers welcomed it with open arms. It really seemed worth it at the time.
Then Sony proved itself with PSN, offering something very comparable to Live for an entire generation before rolling it into the already paid service PS+. It was a smart way to gradually build towards what they offer now.
Nintendo though, being so late to the party, and having not proven themselves, seems like a tough sell. They'll need to generate a ton of goodwill among gamers very quickly before they start charging later this year. It's a chicken and egg situation. Should gamers trust that paying Nintendo will deliver a better service, or should Nintendo prove themselves to gamers first? Of course the latter situation is more ideal, but I guess we'll just have to wait and see.
Log in to comment