>People actually want Pokemon USUM/Stars for the Switch >paying

I honestly have no fucking clue.
Everyone probably forgot that the Switch online is paid because of the long ass free trial.

>>32698758
Some of us grew up and got jobs that allow us to buy new consoles and pay for new services.

I'm not paying for online for pokemon I'm paying for online for ARMS and Splatoon 2.

>I am a poorfag that wants Pokemon to remain on shitty hardware forever because mommy didn't give me enough allowance to buy a switch

>>32698758
>USUM

>>32698758
You really can't put 20 dollars out for online?

>>32698758
$20 a year doesn't bother me in the slightest when it lets me play other games online as well.

File: 15keks.jpg (30KB, 540x509px) Image search: [Google]

30KB, 540x509px

>>32698758
>Poorfags can't even pay $20 for a year of online shit

>>32698785
I don't want the Switch's flagship to be a fucking upscaled 3DS game.
Give Gamefreak time to start developing for the Switch. They're already hiring, I believe.

File: 1480644238396.gif (1MB, 500x281px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 500x281px

>>32698775
>>32698779
>>32698785
>>32698804
>>32698813
>>32698829
>play mainline Pokemon games multiplayer for free for 20 years
>new games on new console force me to pay to play multiplayer
>suddenly this is okay

>>32698859
Why would it not be okay? It's $20 for online for the entire system, not $20 per game. I don't see the problem here unless you only play Pokemon.

>>32698859

In the most recent games, you can still play local wireless for free, same as always. And if a paid service allows improvements in non-local multiplayer, then it's worth it.

>>32698758
>Terrible framerate
>Terrible graphics
>Small screen
>Hardware limitations
>Leaks will happen almost a month before the game releases.
Gee I wonder why people don't want it to be on 3DS!

>>32698886
I do only play Pokemon and am not a gamer in the first place so I don't like having to pay beyond the initial investments I made for Pokemon.

>>32698886
I don't see the problem here unless you only play Pokemon.

There's your answer, there is people who legit only buy Nintendo handhelds to play Pokemon for whatever fuckup reason but still hate everything else Nintendo does.

>>32698758
You faggots supported le GOTY third versions for years. GF are the laziest pieces of shit devs that keep making money off of millions upon millions of idiots. Please fucking kill yourself before you think you're above any of that. USUM is like the lowest they've sunk and I bet you're all for it.

explain how I'm supposed to play online with my banned 3ds.

>>32698939
Look, I sympathize, but paid online multiplayer has been a thing for a long, long time now. We should be happy it took Nintendo this long to move to it, not pissed off that they finally are. They could be charging a lot more if they wanted to.

(That being said, if this doesn't result in an improvement in the quality of the service, we'll be justified in our anger.)

>>32698921
>Leaks will happen almost a month before the game releases.
As if that wouldn't happen on the Switch?

>>32698979
So you're saving money by not having to pay for it! Everybody wins!

>>32698965
>I bet you're all for it.
Are you living in an alternate reality? This board has done NOTHING but bitch and moan about USUM.

>>32698965
I support them because they're generally the best games Gamefreak releases, whether this rubs off poorly on them as a company or not.

>>32698758
It's $20 a year. That $20 goes toward making better service. Chill your tits you Jew, it's worth it.

>>32698979
Inject a public friendcode seed.
It's LITERALLY available for download in /hbg/, and it's as simple as replacing a file.

>>32699016
>we're the Jews
>when Nintendo is the one charging for online

>>32699054

Well, I'm literally a Jewish person (which apparently gives me some authority on the subject?), and I think you're being a fucking cheapass. It's twenty damn dollars.

>>32699027
>gets banned in next wave
now what?

I already fell for the "it's literally as simple as abc and you have no reason not to do it" meme once

next you'll be telling me I just need to download the legal defence guide github wiki and read it in court against Nintendo and I'll be released in a snap with no charges possible whatsoever

>>32699054
>Nintendo charges $20 for one year
>Sony charges $50 for one year
>Microsoft charges $60 for one year

>>32698854
http://nichegamer.com/2017/03/20/game-freak-hiring-for-a-worldwide-popular-rpg-on-consoles/

They want people with experience making WiiU and Vita games for a "globally popular RPG." This confirms a Switch title is in the planning stage if not a bit further, but USM is meant to ease the wait like B2W2, which was also released when a new platform was out, did for XY. Hopefully this means the first 3DS game with a meaty postgame. After the Looker Episodes in XY, Episode Delta in ORAS and the UB Quest in SM, these games were pretty lacking.

>>32699107
If you get banned in the next wave (provided one is even coming), there'll likely be another friendcode floating about soon after.
If they ban everyone once a month, that should be pretty sustainable.
I don't know why I'm even trying to convince you. If you want to stay banned, go ahead.

>>32699106
It's not some of us people don't feel like paying it's that it shouldn't even be paid for at all especially if it's a kids game. It's like you having to pay $20 just to take drink out of a water fountain or pay $40 a year just to take a shit at a public bathroom.

File: pokemon-surpised.jpg (38KB, 640x360px) Image search: [Google]

38KB, 640x360px

>USUM

>>32698758
I'd rather buy the new console and get working games than pay for a slideshow.

>no more 240p bullshit
>no more shitty 3ds limitations
>cant pay $20 a year

cuck lol

>>32698859
I told you, I'm not paying for online for Pokemon. I never use Online for pokemon. I'm paying for it for games that I actually want to use the online for, like ARMS and Splatoon.

>>32699158
But if it costs Nintendo to provide a service, why shouldn't the people who use the service pay for it? To use your comparison, some public bathrooms do in fact charge a fee, which is what allows the service to exist.

If Nintendo is taking my $20 to provide me with a better service than what I was receiving for free, then I don't see what's so unfair about it. It seems that we agree that $20 isn't an unreasonable amount, so if your problem is with the concept of paying for a service, then I just can't agree with you.

File: 1491622935949.jpg (7KB, 238x183px) Image search: [Google]

7KB, 238x183px

>>32699206
>But if it costs Nintendo to provide a service, why shouldn't the people who use the service pay for it?
Because they've been doing good without it for 20 years?

Hell the Nintendo Wi-Fi Connection service for DS and Wii was the best online service any game company has had and the best Nintendo has had so far. And it was completely free.

The online service they are offering now is just shit
>Voice Chat requires smartphone app that you have to pay for to get all the features
>Voice Chat headset is completely fucking bonkers
>Switch Virtual Console is behind a subscription wall
>Can't even keep the games when the subscription is over
>Special E-shop deals are now exclusive to subscription instead of being how they always have through Newsletter or Club account rewards
>Doesn't offer anything else

Nintendo is only doing this to cash in on what Microsoft and Sony have been getting away with. And charging online for a kids game like Pokemon is completely baffling and an out of leftfield practice that I would never expect Nintendo, let alone GameFreak, to sign off on.

>>32699433
>Can't even keep the games when the subscription is over

I might have missed this one. Are they making E-shop subscription only now? Because I still had stuff to purchase on 3DS, and dislike the idea of just throwing money away.

>>32699433
>Because they've been doing good without it for 20 years?
Well first off, let's be clear - they've been doing without it for 10 years, not 20. Prior to that, the only multiplayer available was local (link cable, then wireless). And there's no indication that that's going anywhere. That will continue to be free. The issue is paid online.

>the Nintendo Wi-Fi Connection service for DS and Wii was the best online service any game company has had
I think a LOT of people would disagree with you on that. Two words: Friend Codes.

>The online service they are offering now is just shit
I don't disagree! And as I've said multiple times, if the $20/year service isn't an improvement over what we have now, there will be reason to be upset. (And to be fair, the Switch voice chat setup isn't a great omen.) But IF the paid service is a genuine improvement, then I'll have no issue with the fee.

>>32699515
I heard they changed it so you keep it after the month is over, forgot where I first read that though

>>32699515
If you get the Switch Online Subscription, you only get the "Classic Games Collection" which is just SNES/NES Virtual Console but with online multiplayer, if you pay the subscription. Once it expires you can't touch the games anymore.

>>32698982
PC is free.

>>32699433
hqalf of that stuff is projections, we know shit about VC except you get to play a collection of them if you are paying for the online, no one said you can't buy them and no one said that the only deals will be for online subscribers

>>32699536
>Friend Codes.
Not that anon but the Switch still uses Friend Codes. And even besides that, the service was just all around great. They had a bunch of servers available so connections were almost always stable.

I'm fine with paying $20 for online I just don't understand why Nintendo is doing it. They don't need to do that, especially now knowing how much they are actually charging. Like it or not, Microsoft and Sony charge so much because they have a really god tier online subscription service and they have hundreds of games that use online multiplayer. That's not the same for the Switch.

$20 is not a lot of money so what the hell could Nintendo need it for besides just having it? They aren't offering a lot when it comes to the service as is. The main benefit is just playing games online, which we've been doing for free, even not including Pokemon, for 13 years.

>>32699651
>the Switch still uses Friend Codes.
this is true, but it also allows you to add profiles directly

File: file.png (28KB, 1054x268px) Image search: [Google]

28KB, 1054x268px

>>32699604
>the only deals will be for online subscribers

>>32698758

Because they think the Switch is going to be the new handheld console.

File: this really pops my puyos.jpg (17KB, 210x240px) Image search: [Google]

17KB, 210x240px

>>32699684
just like PS+, who would have thought
pretty much everything I get that isn't VC is physical, so I'm going to miss out on that outside of Prime Savings or associate discount

File: aigiswat.png (8KB, 65x75px) Image search: [Google]

8KB, 65x75px

>>32699719
>Being fine playing on a now 6 year old console with barely 20fps 240p battles this day and age

>>32699824

Yeah its fine for what it is

>>32698758
That alone should have shown people that Stars was a meme. There was no way Pokemon--a game which uses online interaction as a staple feature--is going to be introduced right around the time an untested paid service hits new hardware.

If Switch ever sees a mainline game it wont be until Gen 8.

USM is in the right place