During a GDC presentation today Nintendo's Takashi Aoyama announced the new "Wii Pay & Play" service. He explaind (via Kotaku) that Nintendo will begin "collecting fees for some services [that] will allow us to adapt flexibly."
He added that it was a Nintendo initiative to avoid misleading consumers into thinking they can buy games that can be played entirely free when they cannot (whether or not this implies an initiative to begin charging for multiplayer content was unclear). To aid in a clear cost presentation, the blue WFC logo will be joined with a similar red logo featuring the line "Pay & Play."
I wouldn't mind paying for a service as long as it wasn't half-assed and included a better friends system accompanied by in-game voice chat. Perhaps a little dedicated servers? :)
Pay-to-Play will be game specific, not a general integrated service (XBL). So, in other words, you'll have to pay a fee per game.
To avoid customer confusion, Pay-And-Play games will have a red icon on the game's box that reads Pay And Play, in place of the traditional blue Wi-Fi Connection icon, which will only be used for games that are free to play.
I agreed with it at first because I thought it'd be like a XBL service, but after my second post - where I found out that it'd be per game - I changed my mind. Should have edited my first post.
Meh, free or paid only MS did it right. Achievements, online integration into games, in-game/out of game voice chat, and the friends list were there from the get-go. So no matter what game you get now, may it be past, present or future title, you'll be sure to have said features in all games.
Now, when Sony implements some new features (accomplishments, in-game xmb, etc.) I wouldn't be surprised if the developers have to do some extra coding on their side in order to get these features outfitted for their games. Meaning, some games will have in-game XMB, some might not, some games might have voice chat, some not, etc.
And Nintendo, well, they're screwed. A pay-per-game system is a horrible idea. Some developers could easily nickle and dime you, Nintendo will, as usual, give you a gimped online experience and then some. Certain games will have some features, others wont. Horrible.
Pay & Play introduced
He added that it was a Nintendo initiative to avoid misleading consumers into thinking they can buy games that can be played entirely free when they cannot (whether or not this implies an initiative to begin charging for multiplayer content was unclear). To aid in a clear cost presentation, the blue WFC logo will be joined with a similar red logo featuring the line "Pay & Play."
I wouldn't mind paying for a service as long as it wasn't half-assed and included a better friends system accompanied by in-game voice chat. Perhaps a little dedicated servers? :)
http://kotaku.com/359754/nintendo-announc..
To avoid customer confusion, Pay-And-Play games will have a red icon on the game's box that reads Pay And Play, in place of the traditional blue Wi-Fi Connection icon, which will only be used for games that are free to play.
Games w/o the icon are free to play online.
therefore Paid Service > Free Service
hence Wii Pay and Play > PSN
paid service > free service
therefore wii/xbl > PSN
Therefore I am better than you.
Now, when Sony implements some new features (accomplishments, in-game xmb, etc.) I wouldn't be surprised if the developers have to do some extra coding on their side in order to get these features outfitted for their games. Meaning, some games will have in-game XMB, some might not, some games might have voice chat, some not, etc.
And Nintendo, well, they're screwed. A pay-per-game system is a horrible idea. Some developers could easily nickle and dime you, Nintendo will, as usual, give you a gimped online experience and then some. Certain games will have some features, others wont. Horrible.
Submit Comments
Registered Users Only
In order to post comments, you must be a registered member. If you have not registered, it's free and easy!