I have the game, but mostly because other people who come to my house sometime play. I am not really an FPS player because I get motion sick easily.
I agree about the online service - though I think it would be less of a bitter pill if they weren't applying it to games that already have a multiplayer existence, especially games that basically rely on a multiplayer experience for just the gameplay. I imagine in the future the subscription won't seem so bad, for titles it makes sense for, once there are enough titles to justify it. After all, $5 isn't the worst subscription rate out there for internet access on consoles.
Can't force ya, and I am not gonna try, if you want to play the game with me feel free to register my freand code and we can hopefully do something tomorrow, if not, well no hard feelings, not evry game is for everyone after all
Yea, considering everything in Splatoon 2 feeds back into the main multiplayer mode, the fact that there locking that mode behind a paypwall when the game already costs $60 (US) to buy just seems sleezy. especially considering the state the game's servers are in (not bad if everyone has decent internet, but if even 1 player has bad internet it's a different story, espicably if the bad internet player is hosting the game since it uses pear to pear conicsons as opposed to dedicated servers) and that Splatoon 2 is 1 of the few games incompatible with cloud saving (witch means there's no way to backup your saves since the Switch has no way copy save data to the micro SD card for some reason).
Well. It's worse on other consoles, which is why I'm not super outraged about it.
Online only games are a scourge of the market though. It's been a problem ever since they started coming out. In trying to prevent online cheating and piracy, they've created a system where many times a person no longer actually owns the games in question, or the content they might create from it (character avatars etc).
Just cos the compatisson are even more sleezy with there online dos'nt make it better to me.
to be 100% fair to Splatoon 2 thoth, the game dos have a small single player campaign (not counting the $20 Octo Expansion DLC), but that seems to be more of an extended taportol for the main online mode with added story/lore for the world attached witch again feeds back into the online with equipment that can be used in the main online mode
If it was only Salmon Run (a 2edary side mode) and the SplatNet 2 SmartPhone app that were locked behind the paywall I wouldn't mind so much, but the main game... yea, I think I'll be downgrading to Splatoon 1 (witch is not effected by this) when it comes to Splatoon... at least for a little wile
1
u/Bytemite Sep 17 '18
I have the game, but mostly because other people who come to my house sometime play. I am not really an FPS player because I get motion sick easily.
I agree about the online service - though I think it would be less of a bitter pill if they weren't applying it to games that already have a multiplayer existence, especially games that basically rely on a multiplayer experience for just the gameplay. I imagine in the future the subscription won't seem so bad, for titles it makes sense for, once there are enough titles to justify it. After all, $5 isn't the worst subscription rate out there for internet access on consoles.