Super Mario Maker 2

This looks like a skip to me but hey I don't have any great expectations to begin with.
 
Ray Trace said:
yeah just because it was expected doesn't make it any less shitty
Click to expand...

Shitty? Their online is one of the best deals any company has ever given for online. The fact that it's not required to play other levels online is downright fucking generous.
 
MetaWeegee said:
I expected NSO to be forced for level creators, but doing it for people trying to download levels too? That's just *bleep*ed up.

(And judging from how they phrased it, Luigi, Toad and Toadette might only be usable in single player. Please tell me I'm just paranoid.)
Click to expand...

nso is a shit service in general so most things associated with it are going to turn out badly

this game feeling the results of this "feed us money to access features that were once free" is one of the reasons it wasn't acceptable and will never be acceptable

Mcmadness said:
*bleep*ty? Their online is one of the best deals any company has ever given for online. The fact that it's not required to play other levels online is downright *bleep*ing generous.
Click to expand...

if by best you mean by "least shit" then sure thing
 
Ray Trace said:
MetaWeegee said:
I expected NSO to be forced for level creators, but doing it for people trying to download levels too? That's just *bleep*ed up.

(And judging from how they phrased it, Luigi, Toad and Toadette might only be usable in single player. Please tell me I'm just paranoid.)
Click to expand...

nso is a shit service in general so most things associated with it are going to turn out badly

this game feeling the results of this "feed us money to access features that were once free" is one of the reasons it wasn't acceptable and will never be acceptable

Mcmadness said:
*bleep*ty? Their online is one of the best deals any company has ever given for online. The fact that it's not required to play other levels online is downright *bleep*ing generous.
Click to expand...

if by best you mean by "least shit" then sure thing
Click to expand...

Look servers don't grow on trees. I can hardly blame them for wanting a little money with the upkeep. I wish we lived in some money free society where everybody wanted for nothing but we don't.

$10 a YEAR (which is the price of a combo at a fast food joint where I live) is so minor that unless you are dirt poor (and if you are that poor you shouldn't be buying video games anyway) then it really is a non issue.

And the only reason it was even free at first to begin with, is because it was an extended free trial. What they gave was MORE than acceptable.
 
So this game is looking to be so much better than the first, as it should be. As for playable characters, I'm fine with what we have. I would like to see more characters down the line though. Apparently there's no Yellow Toad, unless I missed something.

And about Nintendo's online service, I'll just say that the low cost compared to the competition is the best thing/only good thing about Nintendo's online service.
 
i've seen this trope "they can't afford the costs" be talked over about a million times in this industry, (and it is especially egregious when it is concerning huge megacorporations such as nintendo) and it isn't any less bad here. first of all, the nintendo ds, wii, and wii u had free online for many years, both ds and wii had astronomically-sized player bases that the service was able to handle just fine. maybe it was a bit *bleep* because it relied on poor netcode, but the nintendo switch's online netcode isn't much better than the free online anyway.

second of all, there are no servers. there are cloud servers that do store content for levels, but everything else is p2p. paid online did little, if jack all, to fix server issues found in multitudes of games, and it also did nothing to stop hackers running rampant in say splatoon 2.

and third of all, cheap price is still for a cheap *bleep*ty service where that 20 dollars can be used to satiate your appetite for the day or a purchase of a far better game title on the indie market or heavily discounted games or go towards buying a vpn or towards buying anti-malware or whatever. it's still a bad deal for what used to be a free service, and no, twisting it to mean "extensive trial" doesn't change the fact that it was once free and nintendo still chugged along perfectly fine. 20 dollars is also testing the waters to see what they can get away with. fuck that's why companies started with small microtransactions first, then to gameplay microtransactions, and then finally to loot boxes before they were struck down. 20 dollars is a tactic for a foot-in-door so that it becomes more accepted and more the norm and becomes worse over time. which is why sony and microsoft can get away with charging premium online "services".

if a huge games company like nintendo has intentions of developing an online centric game that it can't afford to maintain servers from purchase of their game sales (and other merchandise tie-ins and whatnot) without resorting to nickel and diming their consumers such as charging for a sloppy service that used to be free as well as being without extra cost pc and multiple hugely popular online games, they should not be in business. period.
 
The direct was mostly “meh” for me. I’m still not getting this game because I was disappointed with the first one, but many things I wanted revealed, such as Mystery Mushrooms coming back weren’t even shown. Toadette being playable isn’t an excuse for me to get this game for no other good reason. If I disliked it the first time, I’ll probably dislike it the second time too. No regrets!
 
MetaWeegee said:
(And judging from how they phrased it, Luigi, Toad and Toadette might only be usable in single player. Please tell me I'm just paranoid.)
Click to expand...

I thought they said that you can only use them in online multiplayer? Where'd you get that from?

Also about the online thing. I only have one sentence to address that with:
I'm disappointed but not surprised.
 
From what I can tell, multiplayer is online only or requires multiple Switches to use. It's pretty lame.
 
might for the separate screens so

but lmao at thinking that it is "generous" you can download and play creations without a paid service. it's not, i can do exactly that with fucking spore. i still maintain it has one of the best sharing stuff i've seen in a video game, making your creature data into embedded pngs of your creature you can simply click and drag over your game, THAT is generous.
 
It's amazing how so many people continue to support that service. "It's cheap! It's really cheap! Stop complaining!" That's not the point. The point is that they charge you money for basically the same thing they had offered you for free, years on end, with no improvements. They have nothing to maintain.

Look servers don't grow on trees
Click to expand...

What servers lmao

The money they earn from the online service don't go to maintaining anything, they are pure 100% profit. Well, I guess maybe they have to pay the guys who developed the NES app. And they will make everything they can to squeeze every last bit of cash out of it by spoon-feeding ancient games and locking essential features of a highly popular game behind a paywall. It's just one big marketing scheme to try to benefit their incompetency when they could just put some effort into it.
 
Moldomré: The Crossover Episode said:
MetaWeegee said:
(And judging from how they phrased it, Luigi, Toad and Toadette might only be usable in single player. Please tell me I'm just paranoid.)
Click to expand...

I thought they said that you can only use them in online multiplayer? Where'd you get that from?

Also about the online thing. I only have one sentence to address that with:
I'm disappointed but not surprised.
Click to expand...

Whoops. I meant to say multi player
 
To be fair, Mario Maker is one game that HAS servers.

Still though, they sure didn't need subscription money to maintain SMM1's server and I think that a better application of subscription earnings would be to add servers to games like Mario Kart and Smash Bros. for their online gameplay which is quite often trash due to peer-to-peer connections.
 
Ray Trace said:
i've seen this trope "they can't afford the costs" be talked over about a million times in this industry, (and it is especially egregious when it is concerning huge megacorporations such as nintendo) and it isn't any less bad here. first of all, the nintendo ds, wii, and wii u had free online for many years, both ds and wii had astronomically-sized player bases that the service was able to handle just fine. maybe it was a bit *bleep* because it relied on poor netcode, but the nintendo switch's online netcode isn't much better than the free online anyway.

second of all, there are no servers. there are cloud servers that do store content for levels, but everything else is p2p. paid online did little, if jack all, to fix server issues found in multitudes of games, and it also did nothing to stop hackers running rampant in say splatoon 2.

and third of all, cheap price is still for a cheap *bleep*ty service where that 20 dollars can be used to satiate your appetite for the day or a purchase of a far better game title on the indie market or heavily discounted games or go towards buying a vpn or towards buying anti-malware or whatever. it's still a bad deal for what used to be a free service, and no, twisting it to mean "extensive trial" doesn't change the fact that it was once free and nintendo still chugged along perfectly fine. 20 dollars is also testing the waters to see what they can get away with. fuck that's why companies started with small microtransactions first, then to gameplay microtransactions, and then finally to loot boxes before they were struck down. 20 dollars is a tactic for a foot-in-door so that it becomes more accepted and more the norm and becomes worse over time. which is why sony and microsoft can get away with charging premium online "services".

if a huge games company like nintendo has intentions of developing an online centric game that it can't afford to maintain servers from purchase of their game sales (and other merchandise tie-ins and whatnot) without resorting to nickel and diming their consumers such as charging for a sloppy service that used to be free as well as being without extra cost pc and multiple hugely popular online games, they should not be in business. period.
Click to expand...

Yeah it was free for years because of how awful it was and many games that did use it were considerably more limited in options than anything the paid competitors were doing. And when it happened in the wii u era that combined with the shitty sales of the system put them in a bad spot.

Not to mention that need I remind you, you aren't just paying for basic online functionality, you are also getting access to many other games on a list that is being constantly upgraded and added to not to mention a bunch of other features as well. Whether or not the games interest you is more a you specific thing.

And in Sony and Microsoft's case, nowadays it's the same deal, you are also paying for extra features and new games as well, if you aren't interested in said games then there are cheaper versions of that you can also get.

Also I would also point out that quality internet service around where I live is just under $70 a MONTH and even that is far from perfect.

Is there bullshit in this industry? Absolutely. Has Nintendo done shitty things before? Of course. But it's $20 a YEAR for games and services that you could theoretically pour hours upon hours of your time into. There are times to wave the torch around and there are times to chill the fuck out. This is the latter.
 
You're maintaining the argument that it's cheap and they give you free games for it. You're exactly the consumer they want to have.
 
if nintendo has money for licensing square enix, konami, sega, and capcom and other third party content, hiring celebrities to do their promotions, money from selling beloved and hugely popular ips, money from hugely successful Switch sales, they damn have enough money to maintain a basic fucking server.
 
After seeing today's Nintendo Direct, this game sure has a lot more stuff to utilize; it might keep me very busy.
 
Fawfulthegreat64 said:
I think that a better application of subscription earnings would be to add servers to games like Mario Kart and Smash Bros. for their online gameplay which is quite often trash due to peer-to-peer connections.
Click to expand...
This is what people were hoping (naive bunch, though it doesn't hurt to be optimistic I guess), but you know the cynical reason is more often the correct reason for anti-consumer practices.

Mcmadness said:
Yeah it was free for years because of how awful it was and many games that did use it were considerably more limited in options than anything the paid competitors were doing. And when it happened in the wii u era that combined with the shitty sales of the system put them in a bad spot.

Not to mention that need I remind you, you aren't just paying for basic online functionality, you are also getting access to many other games on a list that is being constantly upgraded and added to not to mention a bunch of other features as well. Whether or not the games interest you is more a you specific thing.

And in Sony and Microsoft's case, nowadays it's the same deal, you are also paying for extra features and new games as well, if you aren't interested in said games then there are cheaper versions of that you can also get.
Click to expand...
Well all online subscriptions have other features, if my fact-checking aspect of my memory retrieval isn't betraying me. I honestly don't see what justifies the price tag. They shouldn't be charging money for a service that's hardly different in quality when it was still free. Those NES games aren't that impressive, let's be honest, and it just doesn't quite make up for the lack of a Virtual Console. And I'm not sure what other really noteworthy features the service offers other than saves but calling saves a feature, to my opinion, is like saying amiibo-locked content is a justifiable feature of amiibo; something that should've been basic function. It should feel like enticement, not blackmail. And given the game industry, Nintendo is not your friend. This is just a scheme, I think, to maximize profits while trying to trick consumers into thinking the service is worthwhile with a few random NES games and saves stuff when those features aren't all that great to begin with.
 
eh whatever i just have enough.

games. they are fun. i don't have to buy this if i don't wanna. unless mods advertise the game better than the directs do.
 
Bye Guy said:
You're maintaining the argument that it's cheap and they give you free games for it. You're exactly the consumer they want to have.
Click to expand...

A cheap service that gives me access to online functionality for an entire year and games on top of it. If you have an actual counterpoint to make then please do so, otherwise you're just summing up what I said.
 
Well, BLOF, you're entitled to complain if you want to, especially about the apparent injustices at Nintendo, just don't get so angry like I do a lot. You're gonna have people who disagree with you, and that's fine. I still despise Nintendo Switch Online because I view it as exploitation of fans, but I don't like it, I don't use it. I find modding a Switch and dumping a save and NAND far more worth it than a service I'm not going to benefit from. I doubt I'll even like Nintendo games online if they were free because the games online are set up like shit anyway (Mario Kart 8 Deluxe and Smash Bros. Ultimate have absurdly awful online imo).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back