Topic: Episode 537: The Worst Idea in a Strategy Game since Conception II

[NWR_Lindy]

We're adding Rabbids to everything, and the results are nightmarish indeed.

http://www.nintendoworldreport.com/rfn/45333/episode-537-the-worst-idea-in-a-strategy-game-since-conception-ii

We've escaped Isle Delfino, and return to our normal show this week. Greg and James are both still early in Mario + Rabbids Kingdom Battle. Yes, Rabbids are objectively terrible, but this XCOM-inspired strategy crossover is a quite a bit of frustrating fun. Jon has a quick look at a pair of Housemarque games: Matterfall and Nex Machina, both on PS4. Nex Machina is of particular interest, as it borrows liberally from Robotron and Smash TV (including their designer) and could wind up on Switch one day. Guillaume wraps up New Business with a look at Mario Kart 8 Deluxe, liberated from his local library.

With some time to spare in the first segment, the team does a quick review of the Nindies event on Wednesday, and picks out some of the most interesting titles. No, but for real, Travis is back.

After the break, it's time for Listener Mail. This week we're asked: what's the next Rabbids crossover, when can we expect to see Mario and Sonic at the Olympics at the Olympics, what's holding back the video game equivalent of the "cinematic universe", and what it would take for Nintendo to prove to us that they're serious about online. You can write us questions that are obviously just things you want to hear us read out loud by sending us an email.

[pokepal148]

I see the original title got shut down. #censorship

[Wanderlei]

Monster Hunter 3U on Wii U had good voice chat system. Every game that has online play should have the equivalent to it.

[Crimm]

It's still a bestiality reference, just a much more oblique one.

[Kobeskillz]

Ok so i'm gonna give a different perspective here.


All four of you (podcast members) have been playing Nintendo games online for free since what? 2006?


DS, Wii, 3DS, Wii U and now Switch.


That's 5 platforms with free online. Has it a always been great? No. Is it missing modern features? Yes.


But the fact remains that most of the time the basic feature of connecting online and playing with people or friends has been there and free.


Wii MK was smooth as butter and a ton of fun. Smash Wiu/3DS was smooth and insanely fun. Mario Maker, Mario Kart 8, Splatoon, DS MK, i can go on and on. Heck i spent almost 100 hours playing Tetris DS online and it was awesome.


So yes the online is steps back in a lot of ways. But it has been FREE. so far.


Last night i was playing starwars battle front with my brother and that game is a pain in the ass online. I pay MS money yearly and that experience is by far worse than Splatoon.


Hearing people complain about something free is like giving someone a barrel full of money and them complaining that it's too heavy.

[pokepal148]

It won't be free anymore by this time next year though.

[Kobeskillz]

No it will not. If the service is this limited by the time we start paying then yes we have grips. Right now is still free. I can play MK8, Splatoon 2 and other games perfectly fine for free. FREE. Zero money.


Again lots of complaining for something that's been FREE. For 11 years on multiple systems. FREE.


Once the online paid service starts then lets start complaining about it.

[Yoshidious]

I know James often jokes about our less-than-perfect ability to actually answer the questions listeners ask, but we do try. This was Jonathan's question to us:

So, now that the voice chat app has launched to widespread using-something-besides-the-voice-chat-app and Splatoon 2 has launched to widespread “I don’t understand why they insist on doing it this way…” how long does Nintendo have after people start paying for this abuse before it becomes utterly inexcusable?  Assuming of course that they don’t make massive improvements in the next few months, but to be honest, I don’t imagine they’ll suddenly fix things in time for the paid launch when they blatantly ignored universal 5-10 year old solutions the first time around.
 
I always hoped that once they announced a paid service they’d start taking online seriously, but to be honest it doesn’t seem like reality is currently tracking in that direction.
 
Follow-up question: what’s “the sign” for each of you that Nintendo is finally taking online play seriously?  For me, it would be online play in all future “mainline” Mario games exactly as if the players were in the same living room.

The subsequent discussion was not some indiscriminate "bitch-fest" about the state of Nintendo online services for the past twelve years; rather, we tried to address Jonathan's question by evaluating Nintendo's track record in this area, and then project what is likely/unlikely to happen once the service becomes paid next year.

For my personal purposes, Nintendo's approach to online play has been suitable in most respects, and so I wouldn't have minded if they'd decided to simply stay the course and keep everything free of charge. However, that's not what's happening and it's not what Jonathan asked about.

[Kobeskillz]

Listening it came off as that at times.


I was playing devils advocate here somewhat.


Their online needs a lot of work in a lot of areas that's for sure. Once we start paying then they should absolutely be held to the fire if it's not up to snuff.


But hearing the conversation really felt like Nintendo was being kicked for the past when IMO it's been FREE for so long.


I know my opinion wont' be a popular one but again i was just listening to it and that's how it sort of came off.


With that said i don't think the service will see a drastic improvement once we start paying but if they add enough modern features along with the free games they promised then i can see the 20-25 bucks worth it for sure for a year.

[lolmonade]

It's kind of amazing how well Microsoft and Sony have shifted the conversation from "Why should we pay for online when it's not something we've had to pay for before" to "Why shouldn't Nintendo be charging for usage of their online services?", even though nothing that's been shown so far inspires confidence that their online service will be near comparable to Sony/Microsoft's services.

[lolmonade]

But hearing the conversation really felt like Nintendo was being kicked for the past when IMO it's been FREE for so long.

Counter point - what better way to make a guess on how they'll handle their online services for the switch than looking at every past system they offered online for? 

[Kobeskillz]

But hearing the conversation really felt like Nintendo was being kicked for the past when IMO it's been FREE for so long.

Counter point - what better way to make a guess on how they'll handle their online services for the switch than looking at every past system they offered online for?

Oh absolutely. Trust me I have my issues with their online as well.


I also understand that the conversation was looking at their past and trying to predict the future.


But in looking at this past they get way to much crap and not enough credit for providing a service for free. At times terrible to ok but other times absolutely fantastic.


Not having voice chat in their 1rd party games is more of a Nintendo thing.


I talked perfectly fine playing on other 3rd party games on Wii U. Splinter Cell on Wii U is a game i've logged in 70 hours online. Free. I also played tons of black ops 2 on Wii U and still this game has a small but active community. Free.


So I really do hope Nintendo gets their act together once they start charging but i did feel some more positive counter points could have come up rather than the low hanging fruit of just bashing their past and current online cause that's the cool and easy thing to do.


I'm kinda excluding Greg a bit from this as he did bring up some points here and there.

[Mop it up]

I'm right there with you Kobeskillz. I've always enjoyed playing online games on Nintendo systems, they're some of my most-played games on Wii U, Wii, DS, and 3DS. I didn't mind them being a bit bare-bones as I didn't want to pay extra for online even if it's better. And so far, it doesn't look like Nintendo's paid service will be better, especially since Miiverse will not be a part of it and voice chat is more convoluted than it was on Wii U and 3DS.

[pokepal148]

The only Wii U game I can think of that had good voice chat is MH3U.

[Kobeskillz]

The only Wii U game I can think of that had good voice chat is MH3U.

Splinter Cell had voice chat. Games that had voice chat you could use the built in gamepad mic if i remember or a headset.


Either way i didn't mind since A) i would call my friends and B) it was free.


I pay for Xbox Live and still don't use voice chat so no big diff there.

[Crimm]

I've enjoyed online games on Nintendo platforms as well, but this isn't just a question if "does it have voice chat?" There's a larger vision in play. I want to clarify an important point - online play has always been paid for; but it was baked in the price of the game. The move to a paid online model is just a further subsidy. Nintendo themselves determined that the price of the game was enough to cover these expenses, and as such they are open for critique. Nintendo has an established history of half-assing online that speaks to a culture issue inside the company.

• Expensive modem add-ons to the GC then making nothing for them
• NEVER being able to add Jon on Smash Bros Wii (there are multiple RFN segments devoted to this saga)
• Experimental nonsense like Wii Speak, which had the support of something like 5 games and sounded like a call from inside the Marianas Trench
• More interest in using the DS mic for pan flutes than communication
• Passing on dozens of multiplayer games that could benefit from online
• The phrase "LOCAL VIDEO COMMUNICATION" being said by a PR rep and not bursting into flames
• Shutdown of online services for Wii and DS because the partner they hired to build their online model shutdown
• Partnering with someone else to build their online model AGAIN
• Having voice chat baked into their hardware (Wii U/DS/3DS) and then removing it (Switch)
• STILL to this day being unclear on the ins-and-outs of their online vision for Switch
• Only recent production of online-focused games
• No console level party functionality
• No communication WHAT SO EVER in Switch
• Delegation of core online match-making to a mobile app and absolutely zero effort to explain and no development path for future features
• Launching a brand new online-focused game THIS YEAR without any significant communication and NOT using the mobile app they launched A MONTH LATER that were already (poorly) promoting
• Late-to-the-party importing of Wii U friends to Switch (I added Jon via Twitter shared follows -> Miitomo friends -> Switch friends)

Believe, I'm not pleased by the move to charge for online. However, if you go back to an episode before the launch of the mobile app I gave an almost reckless benefit of the doubt. I knew where this train was likely headed. I have zero faith they'll make this app better, and limited faith they'll continue to add games to it (where the **** is MK8D and Arms? Pokken coming?). This isn't just about voice chat, this is about being able to quickly get into games with my friends. This is about stable performance. This is about knowing multiplayer experiences are going to be available to me with my co-hosts. This is about me feeling their going to do some work to justify their price.


Their history of online is suspect. Yes, you can absolutely play SOME of the online games they've released and have fun with it. And some of those games house well-implemented modes. However, they fully intend to charge EXPLICITLY for online - and the features they intend to offer along side it are severely lacking. They weren't being "cool guy Nintendo" before by not charging for an online pass - they were already including that cost in the price of the game.


So back to the segment. We were asked what Nintendo needs to do for us to feel they're taking online seriously. At this moment I do not. I expressed accordingly. It's not my job to give Nintendo a pass. We aren't cheerleaders. And to be honest, being a cheerleader for them is not helpful. Being direct, and contributing to the chorus of feedback is likely the best chance we have at seeing them actually take online seriously. So, if you keep hearing the same complaints it's because Nintendo is still doing the same stuff.

[Kobeskillz]

You make a lot of solid points but to argue that online was "baked" into the price of the game is a bit of a stretch considering other companies sold you a game for the same price and in addition to that you also had to pay to play online.


Yes their past has been spotty to awful when it comes to online. No one is doubting this. But there are also some great examples of online and at times it even surpasses the experience on other platforms where you do have to pay to go online.


My brother used to live with me and we would have to pay for TWO Xbox Live accounts for him to play on the same system.


So yes is fair to criticize Nintendo for their approach to online and hair tearing decisions but it should be countered with the fact that it's been Free or "backed" into the standard price of a retail game and that there has been some great examples of online play in there as well.


Honestly i didn't come in here to "fight" the whole crew as i love your podcast but just wanted to bring up the fact that to me it sounded a bit one sided here and at times just unreasonably negative.




You don't want fans that are just yes men do you? lol.

[lolmonade]

Kobeskillz, bear in mind, i'm not trying to pile-on any criticism at you personally.  And at some point, it's belaboring a point that isn't changing any opinions.  I don't think anyone here is looking for everyone to have the same opinion, otherwise conversation would be pointless.  That said;



Paying for a subscription for online services is a relatively new experience.  For PC players, it's still basically unheard of unless you're doing so as part of an MMO subscription.  Even when Microsoft did it for Xbox live on the 360, the trade-off was that the feature set and consistency of how well it worked was so much better than what Playstation 3 was offering with their free service that people could rationalize themselves paying for the service because the ecosystem was so much better than the alternatives that the value was worth it.  It's also worth remembering that Playstation Plus didn't start as them charging for online as a trade-off to improve their service to parity with Microsoft.  It started as a "free games" program where they gave subscribers a few free games a month on PS3 and additional discounts on other games.  It only became a required service with the PS4, where the tools ARE better than what the PS3 were for online capabilities.


The question to me, given all this, is "What is Nintendo offering beyond what they currently have to justify gating online multiplayer behind a subscription?".  We don't know for sure.  But what they have revealed IMO isn't promising - that it's going to be relegated to a separate app rather than built into the system hardware itself, vague promises of a Netflix-like service for a selection of NES games.  These, in my opinion, are somewhere ranging between a minor addition (NES games), an inconvenient system to enable online matchmaking (a separate app that hogs the usage of a separate mobile device), to big question marks (what does a netflix-style NES catalog mean for Virtual Console?).  It doesn't inspire confidence to me personally that we'll be paying for something that's an actual net-addition to their online service, given the little bit of example we currently have. 


I saw a rationalization for Microsoft and Sony charging for their services at the time they initiated them, I don't see the value-add justification from Nintendo, and it's partially a messaging fault on their end.


The core question in my mind - Which of the reasons is Nintendo starting a paid subscription service?

• Because they recognize the need for their online services to be closer in parity to their competitors?
• Because they know Microsoft/Sony are enjoying a revenue stream they currently aren't exploiting, and are trying to figure out how they can justify it to their customer?

Because they've waffled and tweaked what they said they're going to offer a few times, the cynic in me has started assuming it's the latter.  And because that's the end from which I believe they're approaching this, I don't have much confidence in the outcome.

[Kobeskillz]

Kobeskillz, bear in mind, i'm not trying to pile-on any criticism at you personally.  And at some point, it's belaboring a point that isn't changing any opinions.  I don't think anyone here is looking for everyone to have the same opinion, otherwise conversation would be pointless.  That said;



Paying for a subscription for online services is a relatively new experience.  For PC players, it's still basically unheard of unless you're doing so as part of an MMO subscription.  Even when Microsoft did it for Xbox live on the 360, the trade-off was that the feature set and consistency of how well it worked was so much better than what Playstation 3 was offering with their free service that people could rationalize themselves paying for the service because the ecosystem was so much better than the alternatives that the value was worth it.  It's also worth remembering that Playstation Plus didn't start as them charging for online as a trade-off to improve their service to parity with Microsoft.  It started as a "free games" program where they gave subscribers a few free games a month on PS3 and additional discounts on other games.  It only became a required service with the PS4, where the tools ARE better than what the PS3 were for online capabilities.


The question to me, given all this, is "What is Nintendo offering beyond what they currently have to justify gating online multiplayer behind a subscription?".  We don't know for sure.  But what they have revealed IMO isn't promising - that it's going to be relegated to a separate app rather than built into the system hardware itself, vague promises of a Netflix-like service for a selection of NES games.  These, in my opinion, are somewhere ranging between a minor addition (NES games), an inconvenient system to enable online matchmaking (a separate app that hogs the usage of a separate mobile device), to big question marks (what does a netflix-style NES catalog mean for Virtual Console?).  It doesn't inspire confidence to me personally that we'll be paying for something that's an actual net-addition to their online service, given the little bit of example we currently have. 


I saw a rationalization for Microsoft and Sony charging for their services at the time they initiated them, I don't see the value-add justification from Nintendo, and it's partially a messaging fault on their end.


The core question in my mind - Which of the reasons is Nintendo starting a paid subscription service?

• Because they recognize the need for their online services to be closer in parity to their competitors?
• Because they know Microsoft/Sony are enjoying a revenue stream they currently aren't exploiting, and are trying to figure out how they can justify it to their customer?

Because they've waffled and tweaked what they said they're going to offer a few times, the cynic in me has started assuming it's the latter.  And because that's the end from which I believe they're approaching this, I don't have much confidence in the outcome.

No argument from me. Once they start charging if it's the same online plus a free game here and there then yes i would be right there with you guys criticizing them. I also have gripes with their past online efforts. I would be a fool to defend all their decisions.


But considering i didn't pay a penny for online other than purchasing the game in most cases (sometimes for a few bucks used or sale on amazon) i would argue that there has been a lot of positives as well.


I feel that just talking crap about their online without balancing it with positives is just low hanging fruit and feel the NWR crew could have done better in this instance.


Again i'm a huge fan of theirs and would not be here so passionately talking about this if i didn't care. I do and i hold them at a higher regard because they do so much quality work. I didn't agree completely with the sunshine episode but i respected their opinion (other than john who probably played an hour before the show) but on this episode i really feel they glossed over some things.


Especially since you have past episodes with them talking about how much fun they had with Smash bros and it's online and other games.

[lolmonade]

Sure, I see your points. 


I think in respect to RFN, they've been playing Nintendo games, reporting on Nintendo, and chatting about Nintendo on a podcast for quite a while, which I imagine could add to the cynicism.  Additionally, Jon Lindemann has expressed displeasure several times at the gulf between Nintendo's online services and every other one, so it's not necessarily surprising he's as down on Nintendo about this subject as he was on the episode.


Only other thing I'll say on this - I hope they don't look to give a "both sides to the story" mindset to all the topics they cover on the show.  For the Super Mario Sunshine retroactive, they pushed hard against Jon and Soren's withering comments about the game and gave much more spotlight to the game's ardent defenders than the detractors. 


I think that's a fair thing to do for a retrospective that'll garner a lot of people revisiting a game they love.  I think the world demands too much "both sides to the discussion carry equal weight" mindset as it is.   

[Kobeskillz]

Sure, I see your points. 


I think in respect to RFN, they've been playing Nintendo games, reporting on Nintendo, and chatting about Nintendo on a podcast for quite a while, which I imagine could add to the cynicism.  Additionally, Jon Lindemann has expressed displeasure several times at the gulf between Nintendo's online services and every other one, so it's not necessarily surprising he's as down on Nintendo about this subject as he was on the episode.


Only other thing I'll say on this - I hope they don't look to give a "both sides to the story" mindset to all the topics they cover on the show.  For the Super Mario Sunshine retroactive, they pushed hard against Jon and Soren's withering comments about the game and gave much more spotlight to the game's ardent defenders than the detractors. 


I think that's a fair thing to do for a retrospective that'll garner a lot of people revisiting a game they love.  I think the world demands too much "both sides to the discussion carry equal weight" mindset as it is.   

I loved the Sunshine episode. I didn't agree with all the points and they went hard at the game but it also had counter points.


You got to hear from both sides of it and it was all fair points.


Here it just felt lazy criticism without having good counter points. Mario Kart 8 alone on Wii U offered excellent online while providing incredible DLC.


Smash was great. Splatoon gave us free content for a year and offered smooth online.




Anyways i'm beating a dead horse.


Sunshine episode was so good. Wish we had more retrospectives. : )

[Pandareus]

The podcast has been around for 11 years, i.e. for nearly as long as Nintendo has had online games. If you're looking for RFN giving Nintendo credit for what it's done well on DS, Wii and Wii U, that's where you'll find it.


Reiterating every time the topic of online services comes up that there are online Nintendo titles we've enjoyed would be, frankly, tedious.


If you can't revisit 11 years of podcasting, on this very episode you can listen to me saying I'm enjoying playing an online game on the Switch. Us being critical of the way Nintendo is handling online on Switch in the second segment doesn't erase that.


So yes, obviously, we've been enjoying free online for a while, in quality, fun games. The question was related to the roll out of Nintendo's online app which, I remind you, only allows voice chat in limited game modes and is of little help trying to set up games with friends. It also stops working the second you let your phone's screen fade out, which is unacceptable.


The question was also about Nintendo charging a price for playing online at all in the near future. Given what we've seen so far of the app, it's hard to see this move as something other than Nintendo taking away free online play in exchange for an app that doesn't work.


I think we were fair.

[Jonzor]

1.  I don't think that because something is free it is immune to criticism.


2.  I don't think that all of the shortcomings of their online are related to it being free.  There's some real common-sense type stuff that was blatantly overlooked.


3.  The e-mail was about confidence in Nintendo's future online prospects... all we have to go on (since Nintendo insists on keeping people as in the dark as possible for a console that launched 6 months ago) is Nintendo's past, which has never compared well.  Free or not.


4.  What we do know about their future plans is relegated to a Splatoon game that still features several mind-bending decisions - many of which existed in the first game and were highlighted as shortcomings - and an app that... let's be honest, is lacking.  Yes, the online currently is "free" (depending on how you feel about what James said), but the pillars currently being erected are going to also occupy that paid online space as well.  And it's not encouraging.


The idea that you can patch and update software later gives a lot of (I think false) hope to people about the difference between stuff like the status of chat app now and the status of the chat app when we start paying.  There is a long way to go between where they sit now and where they will have to sit to justify a price.  So the real question is, based on Nintendo's past... do you honestly see them getting there?

[Kobeskillz]

Reminds me of the splatoon episode. The guys dumped **** on Splatoon and i came here and said the same thing about the negativity and it turned out splatoon was a great game that gave us great free content.


People got defensive in that thread too.


Sorry guys. Didn't mean to bring an opinion.

[Soren]

Nintendo will not get a cent from me when the online goes paid. Zero. And it's going to suck when I won't be able to play ARMS or Splatoon 2 in a few months. But I'll get over it. I'll do it in part because other companies still provide a better environment for their online games to flourish. We can do all the bitching about paying for PS+ and Gold and having to deal with network problems but in a few months the only thing we'll be doing is adding Nintendo to that list.  And that's with a pretty suboptimal network, and that's saying a lot seeing as I love cursing the PS4 shitty download speeds. But for all the problems I might have with PS+ I've never been kicked out of a game of Overwatch due to connection issues outside of my control.


Splatoon 2 on the other hand.......hmmm.  I can make montages out of all the times I've been playing and had the game either randomly drop out in the lobby, randomly drop out in the middle of a game, or just get stuck in the lobby infinitely trying to create a match in vain.


Matchmaker? What's that? Apparently not Nintendo. But then again it's not their fault, as this seems to be a common trait among all games. But at least other games are a bit more transparent about how they go about with their matchmaker. I still have no idea how Nintendo puts me in some of the Splatoon games and thinks it's a fair fight.


Is all of that going to stop when the service switches to paid next year? Bueller?


I am totally ok with playing along with the Switch's **** online infrastructure as long as it's free. But you want money for that? No way. Dangling the carcass that is Virtual Console in no way sweetens the pot in any way either.